This blog post analyzes findings from Katie Mansfield’s 2020 MA dissertation “The Architecture of Racism, Sexism and Misogyny: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Representation of Meghan Markle by the British Press” from the University of Sheffield.
When Prince Harry and Meghan Markle announced their decision to step back from royal duties in January 2020, many attributed it to relentless media scrutiny. But was this scrutiny simply intense coverage of public figures, or something more sinister? A comprehensive academic study by Katie Mansfield provides compelling evidence that the British press’s treatment of Meghan Markle was systematically racist, sexist, and misogynistic—and that this extended beyond just the tabloids.
The Research: A Rigorous Academic Investigation
Mansfield’s dissertation employed sophisticated analytical methods to examine how British newspapers represented Meghan Markle from October 2016 (when her relationship with Harry was confirmed) through February 2020 (after their announcement to step back). Using critical discourse analysis combined with corpus linguistics, she analyzed patterns across 173 articles from major British publications.
The study is particularly valuable because it:
- Uses established academic frameworks (Wodak’s Discourse Historical Approach)
- Analyzes both tabloids and broadsheets systematically
- Tracks changes over time through six key periods
- Employs quantitative corpus methods alongside qualitative discourse analysis
- Focuses on linguistic evidence rather than subjective interpretation
Subtle Racism: Beyond Overt Slurs
One of the study’s most significant contributions is revealing how racism operates through seemingly neutral language. Mansfield identified several key patterns:
Strategic Emphasis on Race and Otherness: Rather than simply mentioning Meghan’s background, headlines consistently foregrounded it in problematic ways. For example, The Daily Mail’s headline “from cotton slaves to royalty” reduced her maternal ancestry solely to enslavement, ignoring other aspects of her family history—including her connection to British royalty through King Edward III.
Coded Language: The research reveals how terms like “exotic” carry colonial baggage, positioning whiteness as the norm and othering people of color. As Mansfield notes, this term has historical connections to “human zoos” where people of color were displayed as curiosities.
Selective Historical Comparisons: Meghan was repeatedly compared to Wallis Simpson, emphasizing parallels as “American divorcées” while ignoring crucial differences in their circumstances and the historical context of their respective eras.
Intersectional Sexism: The “Angry Black Woman” Stereotype
The study provides detailed evidence of how Meghan was portrayed through racialized gender stereotypes:
The Predatory Woman Narrative: Using metaphors of hunting and fishing, articles portrayed Meghan as calculating and manipulative—”reeling in” Harry through strategic behavior. This reinforced harmful stereotypes about women of color as hypersexual and scheming.
Impossible Standards: Meghan faced criticism regardless of her actions. When she showed confidence, she was labeled “difficult” or “demanding.” When she followed protocol, she was seen as inauthentic. This reflects what scholars call the “double bind” facing women of color in public life.
Agency Manipulation: Paradoxically, while diminishing Meghan’s accomplishments and reducing her to physical appearance, the media simultaneously blamed her for Harry’s decisions, portraying her as controlling while denying her legitimate influence.
The Broadsheet Problem: Sophisticated Discrimination
Perhaps most surprisingly, Mansfield’s research reveals that broadsheet newspapers—traditionally seen as more respectable—also engaged in discriminatory coverage, just through different methods:
Intellectual Veneer: Quality newspapers used more sophisticated language and referenced high culture, but still perpetuated harmful stereotypes. For instance, comparing Meghan to characters from literature or film while emphasizing racial and sexual themes.
False Equivalencies: Broadsheets often presented “both sides” in ways that legitimized discriminatory viewpoints, treating racist commentary as simply another perspective worthy of debate.
Systemic Analysis: Rather than overt attacks, broadsheets focused on analyzing “what Meghan represents” for British society, often in ways that reinforced racial hierarchies through seemingly objective commentary.
Case Study: The Danny Baker Incident
The research includes a particularly revealing analysis of coverage surrounding BBC DJ Danny Baker’s racist tweet about baby Archie (depicting him as a chimpanzee). Both tabloids and broadsheets worked to minimize the incident:
- Describing it as a “gaffe” or “mistake” rather than racism
- Emphasizing Baker’s intentions over the impact
- Portraying him as the victim of “cancel culture”
- Using quotation marks around “racist” to suggest the characterization was questionable
This case study demonstrates how media coverage can protect white perpetrators while dismissing the experiences of those targeted by racism.
Methodological Rigor and Academic Credibility
Mansfield’s work stands out for its methodological sophistication. By combining:
- Corpus linguistics to identify statistically significant patterns
- Critical discourse analysis to examine power relationships
- Historical contextualization to understand broader social dynamics
- Systematic comparison between newspaper types and time periods
The research provides evidence-based conclusions rather than impressionistic observations. This academic rigor makes the findings particularly compelling and difficult to dismiss as subjective interpretation.
Implications for Media Literacy and Social Justice
The research has broader implications beyond one individual’s experience:
Media Accountability: The study provides a blueprint for analyzing discriminatory media coverage, offering tools for holding publications accountable for perpetuating harmful stereotypes.
Intersectionality in Practice: By examining how racism and sexism intersect, the research illuminates how discrimination operates differently for different groups, particularly women of color in public life.
Institutional Analysis: Rather than focusing on individual bad actors, the study reveals systemic patterns across multiple publications, suggesting institutional problems requiring structural solutions.
Looking Forward: Lessons for Contemporary Media
Mansfield’s research offers crucial insights for understanding contemporary media dynamics:
- Discrimination often operates through seemingly neutral language that requires careful analysis to detect
- Both tabloid and quality press can perpetuate harmful stereotypes through different rhetorical strategies
- Intersectional identities face unique forms of discrimination that single-axis analyses might miss
- Academic research provides essential tools for understanding and documenting media bias
Conclusion: The Power of Rigorous Research
Katie Mansfield’s dissertation demonstrates the value of sustained academic investigation into media representation. By applying rigorous analytical methods to a large corpus of texts, she provides compelling evidence for claims about media bias that might otherwise be dismissed as subjective complaints.
The research suggests that Meghan Markle’s experience represents a broader pattern of how British media treats women of color in public life. Understanding these patterns is crucial for developing more equitable media practices and supporting those who face intersectional discrimination.
Most importantly, this work shows how academic research can provide the evidence base necessary for meaningful discussions about racism and sexism in media representation. As debates about media bias continue, studies like Mansfield’s offer the analytical rigor needed to move beyond opinion toward evidence-based understanding.
Note on Attribution: This blog post is based entirely on Mansfield’s original research and analysis. All insights, examples, and conclusions discussed here originate from her academic work. Readers interested in the full methodological details and complete findings should consult the original dissertation.
Ethical Considerations: This analysis focuses on media representation patterns and linguistic structures rather than making judgments about individuals. The goal is to understand how discriminatory discourse operates in media contexts and its potential social impacts.
celebchai.com 