Below is a copy of a comment that I submitted to the British Broadcasting Corporation’s website earlier today.
My comment denounces conscious or unconscious bias and brutality in royal correspondent Jonny Dymond’s interpretation of the statement Harry and Meghan released yesterday about the “unofficial service” they will be rendering the Royal Family.
Dymond offered his patently prejudicial, psychologically cynical and unquestionably unprofessional interpretation of the royal couple’s statement during yesterday’s edition of BBC’s “World At One” broadcast.
Disregarding or being oblivious to the plain optimism and open mindedness informed meaning of the couple’s stated desire to serve the Royal Family and related military and other bodies in the context of “universal” service, Dymond rashly engages in amateur psychological analysis and morally muddled mind reading, declaring that Harry and Meghan’s statement was motivated by bitterness.
Characterizing the couple’s words as a rebuke to Bucking Palace, Dymond said “…the text actually of Harry and Meghan’s statement in response to Buckingham Palace indicates that there’s a great deal of bitterness still”.
And he reinforces this bias by harshly distorting the actual text of Harry and Meghan’s statement – which simply and accurately says “Service is universal. All can serve,” by adding an imaginary, ill-tempered “not just the Royals” to it (25:53 to 26:22).
As the comment that I have submitted to the BBC makes clear, I believe that this kind of thinly veiled character assassination “represents the worst kind of journalism that could lay claim to the label ‘public service’!”
I write “Mr Dymond’s (sic) insinuation thick, psycho-socially toxic interpretation imputes a pettiness and appetite for rancor to the young couple that can only be justified by turning the open-minded, optimistic understanding of service as a universal phenomenon that they express on its head – no, by decapitating it!”
This seems a brazen effort by Dymond, and others at the BBC to “cash in” on a controversy of their own making.
Here is the full text of my comment:
Is the BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond a mind reader?
On what empirical, objective basis has he concluded that “there is a great deal of bitterness” behind Harry and Megan’s response to Buckingham Palaces statement on their discontinuation of “official” service as members of the Royal Family?
Is that shockingly negative interpretation of Duchess Meghan’s and Prince Harry’s statement justified by the text of their letter?
Doesn’t a more open minded, optimistic interpretation of their aspirations for their future relationship with the Royal Family flow from their words more naturally and spontaneously?
Mr Dymond’s insinuation thick, psycho-socially toxic interpretation imputes a pettiness and appetite for rancor to the young couple that can only be justified by turning the open-minded, optimistic understanding of service as a universal phenomenon that they express on its head – no, by decapitating it!
It represents the worst kind of journalism that could lay claim to the label “public service”!
This is a hatchet job, whether or not Mr Dymond is aware of it.
And if he and others at the BBC are not aware of the violence his interpretation perpetrates against Harry, Meghan, their young son Archie and their unborn offspring, that unawareness is indicative of a shocking degeneration in their personal and professional capacities.
It suggests that an alarming degree of heart hardening and brain death has AGAIN become entrenched at the BBC.
It suggests that a Jimmy Savile recalling, vampirish blood-sucking of the blood of trusting, innocent victims has re-established itself at the BBC, to its employee’s and the license fee paying public’s detriment.
I feel certain that Mr Dymond cannot read (sic) Harry and Meghan’s minds.
His perverse public, cruel interpretation of Harry and Meghan’s letter questions whether or not he can read his own.