That Interview

Before anything is said or any opinion passed, when something of impact and potentially damaging impact at that is voiced, we need to bear in mind the Biblical wisdom of Proverbs. Chapter 18.17 reminds us that the one who states their case first seems right, until another comes to cross question them. Proverbs 10.19 tells us that when many words are many, sin is not far away, and that the one who restrains their lips is wise.

 

There other obfuscating factors at work in all communication too, and these are the factors of context and fulness of truth spoken or revealed. I know that if my children had chosen to marry someone of a different race from them, I might well have expressed curiosity in a benign and wondering way about the appearance or skin colour of their children, particularly if a baby were on the way. This is neither sinister nor racist but simply human curiosity. But such curiosity could well be misunderstood and or misrepresented.

 

Sometimes it is easy to see or hear something and let it feed into one’s own prejudices or one’s own bad experience of a certain issue. My wife and I were picking up stones from the shore of the river and throwing them up the bank in order to fill a hole on the earth path which had been gouged out by flooding. A fisherman on the opposite bank who obviously was employed to keep the fishing grounds in good order called across “I just mowed that bank this morning”. He thought we were simply throwing stones into the grass. It was an easy conclusion to reach, because that is exactly what he saw when he glanced up.

 

Many of the words in the interview will be suffering from the same malaise. Too little context, too much assumed. This is often not the fault of anyone, although where this occurs in a professional interview one might not be blamed for suggesting that the interviewer could have sought clarification using better methods than Oprah did. (Yes I know she took pains to seek clarification on several contentious headline points but this was by way of repetition of the headline, not by way of digging in to it.)

 

Finally the silence or brief reply that may well follow on the part of the monarchy might be judged negatively too. But where are they to go with all this? A long-winded response interview? The public don’t like long-winded pros and cons anyway. The politics of Boris and Trump have shown this. We like headlines. We like solid statements that reek of blame, accusation or triumph. We like shockers and headlines.

 

There were some things revealed that were upsetting to hear, like Meghan’s confession of suicidal feelings. This does represent a failing somewhere of inability to hear and to act. But again it would need a careful analysis of what was available to her and what she expected by way of response in order to come to a good understanding of this. It is clear that conversations were had within the family that touched on difficult things, but again, what one person said may not have been heard in the way that they intended it to be heard. Harry talked about history repeating itself and parallels with his mother’s story. He did say that unlike her Meghan was not alone, and that she had him by her side. So not quite a parallel, but a story with one glaring similarity – that of a hounding by the press.

 

The other great controversy of these days is the Salmond-Sturgeon one. Again it will be a case of who said what and when and where, and how was it heard and why wasn’t it recorded?

 

Net result in both controversies? A lot of pain and damage.