The Significance of The Ofcom Decision and Piers Morgan
Does Morgan have an opportunity to help salvage the reputation of the Monarchy?
When the Ofcom Decision was released on 1 September 2021, in relation to the complaints made about the discussion of the Oprah Winfrey/Sussex interview on Good Morning Britain (8 March 2021), it wasn’t about Piers Morgan – it was about protecting the right of the freedom of expression.
https://harrymarkle.wordpress.com/2021/09/17/the-ow-interview-piers-morgan-and-the-ofcom-report/
The conclusion was that Piers Morgan had a right to express his opinions, and he did not break the guidelines. So why didn’t ITV support him, and force him to apologize for his opinions (which millions of others share) or to resign? The Decision basically states that ITV appeared to have ‘fired’ him for doing nothing wrong, and in the eyes of many it is a classic case of constructive dismissal. He no longer has to keep ITV ‘sweet’ given that he has announced he will be working for Murdoch’s News Corp across multiple platforms.
While Piers Morgan is a larger than life character, and much was made of the fact that he was vindicated, the skeptics among us wonder whether Ofcom were relieved that attention was focused on Morgan, and that people would fail to read the small print. The small print was that they would not proceed (at present) with the investigations into the complaints made about the Oprah Winfrey/Sussex interview because the board decided that the Sussexes were merely expressing a personal opinion. Is Ofcom afraid? They reiterate several times that some comments that Morgan and his guests made had the potential to cause harm and offence. However, that is exactly what Harry and that wife of his have done – their opinions not only had the potential to harm and cause offence, they actually did cause harm and caused a nation to be offended, but will Ofcom not take those harmful comments seriously?
Could Piers Morgan sue ITV and Carolyn McCall (CEO), who appeared to have propelled and pushed for Morgan’s exit? Technically, Morgan did nothing wrong, and his opinions are shared by millions, and similar comments flood social media platforms on a daily basis. The phrase of ‘potential harm and offence’ is repeated for effect to pacify those who have complained, and who were always going to complain. I imagine they had a complaint letter drafted before Good Morning Britain was even aired.
Here is a copy of a letter from ITV, that was sent to me by a reader who had complained about the bias McCall had shown. It is clear evidence that ITV did not support Morgan, and McCall was likely to have been instrumental in removing him. This obliterates ITV’s apparent cries of declaring their support of Morgan, and while freedom of expression is necessary, it is clear that those working for ITV are more interested in money, and that the CEO lacks the ability to be professional and impartial. The complaint did not ask for McCall’s views on the matter, but were foisted upon the viewer in the response.
So, let’s see this letter or emails that TW allegedly wrote to McCall in a bid to influence her to oust Morgan, which was an act of revenge for criticizing her actions over the years. If the said communications were responsible for McCall making what can be deemed an unethical action which contravenes basic employment laws that protect employees, then TW’s abuse of a title and status is something that the public need to be protected from. Did TW coerce McCall to conspire against Piers Morgan for her own personal agenda? Many other television shows criticized the Sussexes, so did she write complaint letters to all those shows?
Can the Queen really stand back and allow someone to abuse a title she gifted in order to pursue an act of revenge?
Will Piers Morgan fight the good fight, and force the hands of ITV and TW to come clean and expose what appears to be an abuse of position and status? I’m sure many lawyers who value justice, truth, and the right to freedom of expression would love to see a case where precedents to prevent the abuse of power in order to protect the freedom of expression can be established. It’s all for the greater good of society and humanity.