'CONVERSATIONS' ABOUND IN MEGHAN AND HARRY INTERVIEW

     Last Sunday's interview with Meghan and Harry was a bit confusing to this critic when figuring out what the discussion was really about became more difficult. Did the discussion primarily concern the couple's troubles with being part of England's monarchy? Was it about racism since Meghan identifies herself as being biracial?  Was it about the relationship between the royal family and the English tabloids?  Was it about interviewer Oprah Winfrey's  position as a well-known  celebrity herself?

     It's apparent that most all of the various messages during the interview inspired  points-of-view that were negative. For example, the royal family did not come off as belonging to a particularly positive "institution." For that matter, journalism in Great Britain also seemed to be a negative "institution ." Similarly negative is the powerful role Winfrey plays in America journalism: at times we are not sure what side she was taking. Often, too, she even asked rude questions. This ambiguity made us feel uncomfortable. Obviously, the presence of racism in UK's institutions was also an adverse one, leaving the audience with a disappointing perception of our friends, the Brits, and the Royal Family whom we respect.

     Not everything in the broadcast promoted a negative response, however. The ending is a fairy-tale one:  We see how Meghan and Harry have put their lives back together, and they are now living a better life. Is that, in effect, the real theme of the interview? If so,  that positivity is particularly relevant now: while negativity is part and parcel of our experiences with Covid today, perhaps fairy-tales will somehow predominate in the near future. 

     Let's consider another factor in the interview besides topics/ themes: the use of the word, "conversation." It's one of those items that is often currently employed, reminding us of another much utilized word: "issues." For instance,  "The man has issues." This is not to suggest that "conversation" and "issues" share a similar meaning. Yet they are both somewhat ambiguous and also abstract  For example, "conversation" can indicate an informal oral exchange between two or more people as it can include a discussion between a small group that is not  face-to-face. Intentions can vary, too: a "conversation" can be a debate, argument, persuasion or any number of other purposes. Moreover, the conversation's content can be similarly diverse, containing the participants' feelings, thoughts, opinions, observations, etc.

     What stands out in the interview's use of "conversation" is its frequent appearance. In fact, Meghan and Harry's constant repeating of the word called attention to itself. As this happened, viewers  (including this critic ) began to question the nature and context of the word. Thus, were specific examples of "conversations" face-to-face between people involved or could their talk have been over the phone? Were such instances a formal interchange or causal one? How many individuals were present?

      Any one of these considerations could effect the meaning of "conversation" and thus our reaction and attitude about it.

     Time for another interview with Meghan and Harry with a different time, place and interviewer.  And one which is unedited. ( That is one stipulation which Winfrey did not mention in her disclaimers because the discussion was, indeed, edited.)

     Oh yes. In this new interview, no use of the word "conversation" is allowed.