Why the Media Fails to Credit Harry for Supporting Meghan’s Royal Stepback

There is a consistent pattern in the media's treatment of Harry and Meghan, particularly from certain outlets like the Daily Mail, that highlights their unwillingness to credit Harry's longstanding desire for a stepback from royal duties. This article will delve into why the media fails to acknowledge Harry's role in this significant decision.

Understanding the Reality

Harry and Meghan have not fully stepped down from their royal status. They remain their Royal Highnesses, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Their move has allowed them to split their time between the UK and Canada, with the Queen requesting they not use the honorific HRH while off duty. Harry’s desire to step back from royal duties was a longstanding one, which the media still struggles to acknowledge, particularly since Meghan entered the royal frame.

Media Bias and Schadenfreude

The tabloid press, including the Daily Mail, has a long history of targeting both individuals. However, when it comes to Harry and Meghan, the media’s response can be characterized by schadenfreude. They have consistently portrayed the duo in a negative light, often making unsupported claims and using sensationalism to create clicks and controversy.

Harry has repeatedly expressed his discomfort with the role of the Spare. From a young age, the media has made his life difficult. Now, they extend their negativity to his wife and child, with no regard for the facts. Some media outlets have spent so much time discrediting Meghan that it has become a headcanon, or a deeply held but unproven belief, among their readers. This bias means that even when they demonstrate qualities that should earn praise, the public is often quick to criticize them.

The Role of Proof and Rationale

Despite all evidence to the contrary, many in the public continue to believe that Meghan would never return from her stepback to fulfill royal duties, with some even calling her a coward. Yet, she managed to make a public appearance in a dress, smiling with her husband. The media, however, chose to focus on negative aspects, such as her seeking attention or standing in a particular position.

Furthermore, when they left their son Archie at home, the media wrongly blamed her for the decision. This shows a fundamental mistrust of the couple’s ability to make decisions jointly, like any other normal family. The media’s response is not based on truth or evidence but rather on their own biases and narratives.

Conclusion

The media’s treatment of Harry and Meghan is a prime example of media bias and a lack of understanding of the complexities of their situation. Rather than acknowledging Harry’s supportive role in their decision to step back from royal duties, the media focuses on negative aspects, fueled by their own biases and negative perceptions.

It is crucial for the public to critically evaluate the information presented by tabloids and other media sources. Fact-checking and seeking balanced perspectives can help in forming a more accurate understanding and respecting the choices made by public figures like Harry and Meghan.

Media literacy is key, as it helps in distinguishing between reliable and biased information. The public should demand and seek out a more nuanced and respectful portrayal of these individuals rather than falling into the traps of sensationalism and bias.