If Press is silenced, democracy will die
WHAT is ‘truth’? The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as: ‘A report or account which is in accordance with fact or reality.’
To the vast majority, this interpretation is tediously uncontroversial. Yet this week, the truth – a cornerstone of any civilised society – has been put on trial.
And this chilling prosecution has profound implications for the whole of this country and its people.
Despite frequent histrionic pleas for privacy, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex threw open the doors of their Californian mansion to a global TV audience. The purpose? So Meghan could tell the world her ‘truth’.
Talk about explosive! The solipsistic pair unleashed a fusillade of recrimination on those they peevishly consider their tormentors-in-chief: The royal Family and the British Press.
Of all their bombshells, the most egregious was that both institutions were riddled with endemic racism, which drove the couple from these shores.
In modern society, there could hardly be a more damaging allegation. Of course, this view is utterly wrong. The entire nation – and the media – rejoiced when the captivating couple married, sprinkling stardust on to a monarchy in danger of appearing stuffy and antiquated.
regrettably, Harry and Meghan’s claims were never challenged by interviewer Oprah Winfrey, the billionaire who was also one of their wedding guests. The Sussexes were given free rein to peddle their barbs without serious scrutiny or providing the tiniest shred of evidence.
Across the preceding pages, the Mail has sought to divine fact from claim. In a forensic analysis, we expose the exaggerations, contradictions and – in some cases – demonstrable untruths at the heart of their testimony.
For instance, their striking disagreement over the chronology of an allegation a senior royal fussed that their baby would be ‘too brown’. Or the duchess’s inflammatory suggestion the Palace would deny Archie the title Prince because of his ‘dark skin’. That was simply wrong. And the list goes on.
Will Oprah and CBS (the broadcaster which once published a sickening photo of Harry’s dying mother moments after her car crash) now set the record straight? We won’t hold our breath.
Beyond this woeful failure to hold the Sussexes properly to account, this interview has highlighted a sinister phenomenon. Dissent is not tolerated and critics are cast into oblivion. Meghan’s most fevered supporters assert that because she is of mixed race and has suffered mental trauma, she is indisputably telling the truth. Of course, both are profoundly important concerns throughout society. Yet to create a benchmark whereby any claim of victimhood must automatically be believed is deeply worrying.
And to apply such a standard to the contentions of the rich and influential would be pure madness.
Piers Morgan has discovered this to his cost. For labelling the duchess on-air as a liar, he was effectively sacked as host of Good Morning Britain. Extraordinarily, Meghan was one of the complainants.
Surely if she is entitled to tell her ‘truth’, aren’t other people entitled to theirs?
This is more evidence of the insidious tendency for a selfappointed mob to silence those who express uncomfortable opinions and challenge orthodoxies. As a high-profile and popular TV host, Morgan will walk into another role. But too many ordinary people are paying the price for holding the ‘wrong’ views – losing their jobs or official posts, and even probed by police.
History’s map is pitted with places that have borne terrible witness to the consequences of such sinister intolerance: From Salem to Xinjiang.
Free speech is the first step to building a more cohesive, tolerant and fairer society. It must be defended at all costs.
Opportunistically hitch-hiking on the back of Meghan’s sermonising, the woke elite and Left-wing MPs are now maliciously seeking to silence and shackle newspapers they loathe. As richard Littlejohn wrote, these swivel-eyed ideologues are in thrall to every diversity – except diversity of opinion.
Britain, though, would be significantly poorer for the loss of its free and swashbuckling Press. Yes, it can be scurrilous and provocative.
But by poking its nose into places where it is not wanted, the Fourth Estate has persistently succeeded where our politicians, police and financial watchdogs have failed – by exposing corruption, wrongdoing and incompetence.
And what about those despicable smears of racism? Of course, the media can always do more to embrace those from different cultures and races. But without the Mail, the botched police inquiry into Stephen Lawrence’s murder would never have come to light, nor two of his killers brought to justice.
Without journalists, the Windrush scandal may not have been uncovered. And the full extent of the failings behind the Grenfell inferno would have stayed shrouded in secrecy.
The past teaches many lessons. But one stands out: When the venal and self-serving are allowed to determine their ‘own truth’, democracy quickly dies.