Starving the media beast: Have the royals learnt a thing or two from Andrew Cuomo?

One of those crude rules of thumb, generally helpful but not always accurate, is that conservatives believe we are defined by our bodies, are born into a specific sex, and with sets of behaviour largely guided by our nature. Liberals, on the other hand, have us defined by our minds and believe that we can overcome our genetic or cultural programming. They are big on reinventing the self economically, gastronomically, socially, and even by gender. Centrists, meanwhile, alienate everybody by believing that both sides are partially true, and life is about balancing whatever is inherent with that which is wilful. We fumble through, in other words, making the best out of often trying circumstances.

And if that sounds crude, it’s probably because it is. Yet we live in a crude age, where Democrats are so ready to harm themselves around the case of New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, while conservatives (though ‘traditionalists’ is a better, less politicised word) are ready to erect barricades against the Duchess of Sussex.

Cuomo has run afoul of liberals because he is a man clearly in thrall to his passions. Of course, Republicans snigger with amusement at this. President Trump is a man totally in thrall to his passions and they’ve always managed to find a virtue in that. “So what? He’s a man with a stressful life and he likes beautiful women,” they’d say. Cuomo is a liberal, however, and he has transgressed the unwritten Liberal Constitution in the same way that Senator Al Franken famously did when he was seen in a photo from his showbiz days, pretend-groping a sleeping woman’s breasts. That was enough to destroy his political career – they didn’t even afford him a trial – and, though it was later seen as the politically naïve railroading of a hard-working senator, lessons were never really learned.

Cuomo’s behaviour has not yet been proved illegal. Three former female employees have now come forward and made accusations against the Governor but these allegations are problematically in that grey area where actions merely contravene social norms. He kisses a woman at a dinner party, his hand touching her bare lower back. Another accuses him of embracing her “very long, too long, too tight, too intimate”. At another time, he inquires about having relationships with an older man…

So, where should the line be drawn? He’s a single man, certainly, but also New York’s governor. If it can be reasonably be argued that he shouldn’t be hitting on a young woman in his office or even at dinner parties, then is it facetious to ask where should an unmarried man be allowed to be flirtatious or lecherous or creepy when he also happens to be New York’s governor? How could any New York governor ever show interest in a woman without the power dynamic becoming problematic? Should the role of New York’s governor come with a commitment to celibacy? Ridiculous you might rightly say but not entirely. If these things aren’t codified, how can we then judge a person according to that unwritten code?

None of this is meant to pass a judgment on his behaviour, but rather highlight another story where arguments betray more about the character of those arguing than the subject of their disagreement. Whether on the left or right of politics, the further we stray from a place of humility – where we are left scratching our heads and grimacing at how awfully difficult it all is – then the more we believe we (and only we) are right. Summary verdicts tend not to be characteristic of people who value nuance.

This is why two nations are now raging about the interview that the Duchess of Sussex gave to Oprah this week. Opponents on both sides of the Atlantic are divided on what she had to say. She is either the black woman whose treatment at the hands of the British Royal family exposed the systemic racism of the nation or she is an actress propelling herself to even greater fame by using the ambiguities of movement politics to reframe her own bad behaviour.

What can we say, or do we really know about events? Much of her story sounded persuasive but other parts were plainly ludicrous. The idea that the Archbishop of Canterbury had secretly married the couple days earlier has been debunked. Other aspects of the story, meanwhile, were more nuanced than presented by Oprah, such as the non-contextualised reference to Danny Baker’s now-notorious tweet in which he posted a picture of a chimpanzee in a top hat. It was a crude working-class stereotype mocking the upper class, no more offensive (except to animal lovers) than PG Tips ads turning labourers into chimps. Baker claimed he knew nothing about Meghan’s ethnicity and that logic held given that Baker had no history of racism or “edgy” comedy and certainly wouldn’t have wanted to destroy his career (as he would have known it certainly would) by engaging in deeply racist behaviour. Presented without context on American news, it’s fair to say that it didn’t tell the full story. Yet if the bits we know about are problematic, how much are we to believe the bits we can’t authenticate?

We know little of the truth behind Meghan and Harry’s relationship with the other royals or, indeed, her family. In that gap in our understanding, we construct narratives that suit our biases – foolishly pick a side based on something no more meaningful than “faith” or “luck”. Are parts of the Royal family racist? Perhaps. It’s probably even likely given that most extended families will have the odd overt racist. It’s unfair, however, to characterise the whole by the part, as it would be to describe the UK as a “racist nation”. Parts of it certainly are, but that is far from the whole story. As we smug centrists would point out: it’s complicated. This is a story being played out in the media, the reality of which we can’t see, and, to make it even more confusing, being filtered through the prism of American news unconsciously channeling the nation’s own problems around race into a crudely uninformed picture of Britain, as well as a UK media which all too often reduces America to crude cultural stereotypes.

Confused? Of course we are. Yet we are also discouraged from thinking about complexity. Click-bait culture spreads because it simplifies. People hate to think in terms of paradoxes, such as the particularly fiendish notion that it is possible to both dislike Meghan and not be racist (or, one might suppose, like Meghan yet hold racist views), or to think Piers Morgan can sometimes be right yet despise the guy. It is also possible to dislike the idea of a monarchy but not quite as much as one hates the idea of some notional head of state elected by the people (left up to the public, President McPresidentface would probably be the least offensive result). Yet in these polarised times, nuanced or complicated sentiments are no longer tolerated. The Royal family is either the product of colonial times, filled with white privilege, and as out of touch regarding Meghan as they were about Diana, or they’re an old-fashioned family hoodwinked by an American TV actress who understands how to use the media to turn herself into a new cultural megastar. Take your pick, choose your poison…

On the face of it, there’s little similarity between the story of the New York Governor and that of the Duchess of Sussex. Yet there is perhaps one lesson that the Royal family and Andrew Cuomo have taken to heart: refusing to engage with the story. Cuomo has issued apologies about the way his actions were perceived but he has no intention of standing down. He perhaps understands the truism about the media, which is that they have a short attention span. Meghan understands celebrity culture in a way that still eludes the British royals. Their roles are constitutional and they don’t depend on ratings and page clicks to retain their positions.

Yet the Palace’s response, a masterclass in understatement, has given nothing away. When loyalties – indeed prejudices – are so firmly set, what would the Royal family gain by being drawn into a tabloid squabble? CBS would have loved something to latch on to to draw out this saga and prompt another two-hour interview. We can also be sure that Netflix would be eager to extend The Crown to another series and, given how this crazy story is escalating, perhaps Meghan will play herself… with Andrew Cuomo as Prince Charles.