There is always a fine line between tight journalistic scrutiny of celebrities and deliberate interference in their lives until things go south. Oftentimes, the same renowned journalists who have established themselves as eminent media personalities fail to recognize the same. It is no secret that the rapacious media loves to keep a tab on the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Prince Harry, and Meghan Markle. However, certain controversies have gotten out of hand at this point. For instance, the Jeremy Clarkson versus Meghan Markle controversy, which has created quite a ruckus on the internet. The royal author and top critic of the pair, Jeremy Clarkson, and his remarks have received the final nail in the coffin. 

Back in 2022, Clarkson laid bare his abhorrence, targeted at the pair as he launched a blistering attack on the Duchess. His comments included statements as adverse as “dreaming” of the Duchess walking naked in the streets of London. The terrible comments found shelter in one of the most talk-about tabloids of the United Kingdom, The Sun. The IPSO, thus, had to intervene in the matter. 

IPSO asks The Sun to replace Jeremy Clarkson’s column with case rulings following the Meghan Markle debacle

In the repercussions of the hateful column, the writer, along with the publication, faced back-to-back complaints from human welfare groups. They claimed that the remarks surmounted a breach of clause 12 of the Editor’s Code of Practice. The same invited close inspection from the media regulator. Commenting on the issue was the CEO of the organization, who decided the retribution the publication would face. 

Calling it “a fair process” the organization demanded the publication’s position on that. Hence, as a result, IPSO has ruled that The Sun has to print the rulings of the IPSO on the front page with apt rectifying statements from their side. The decision is certainly a blow to the publication, but a hallmark in IPSO’s case as it registered a record-breaking 25,100 complaints following the column’s publishing. 

“This is the most significant sanction that we would impose for an individual complaint,” IPSO CEO Charlotte Dewar affirmed to Variety in an exclusive interview. She further continued that the case was not about offense. “It’s specifically about whether it has breached the Editors’ Code,” Dewar continued.

The Independent Press Standard Organization wanted to make sure whether it violated the article code. Hence, it took three months for the media watchdog to conclude. But what took so much time?

What was the UK watchdog’s jurisdiction on the matter? 

As was quite inevitable, the commentator found himself at the receiving end of all criticism for his crude remarks. Legitimate authorities from the UK government had to intervene to look into the sensitivity of the matter. Upon months of scrutinization, the UK watchdog released the statement that the columnist made a “reference to stereotypes about women using their sexuality to exert influence” in his newspaper column. It further amounted to implying that it was the Duchess’ sexuality that Clarkson used to make the stirring remarks. 

Not only were they ‘sexist’, but Clarkson’s comments also played on “humiliating imagery” to degrade the Duchess’ reputation, said the committee. The final jurisdiction by the committee said Clarkson’s hatred on a “cellular level” catered to the stereotypes of women.

What is your take on the matter?