Press Blackout

[Lee Chambers]

I'm sure by now we've all heard at least some part of the story of how Prince Harry, third in line for the British throne, has been serving for ten weeks in Afghanistan without the world being told about it. While I'm sure opinions vary wildly about the prince's time on the front line, my concern right now is the issue of the press blackout and the resultant backlash that its getting.

On one side you have those who applaud the British media for keeping the secret and allowing the prince to serve and also for thinking of the other soldiers who served with him and the danger they would have been put in if enemy forces were aware that a member of the royal family was in their midst.

On the other side you have those who have condemned the British media for keeping the secret, saying that its a throw back to the worst forms of censorship due to pressure from the royal family and the British government and praising the Drudge report for breaking the story and keeping freedom of the press alive and well on the Internet.

I've got my own opinions on the matter, which I will share, but I'm curious what others think.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Yeah, Matt Drudge couldn't keep his mouth shut and ruin everything for Harry. Now he has been shipped back home. I'm sure Matt will get a nasty letter from the Queen for opening his big mouth.

 

[TE999]

Yeah, Matt Drudge couldn't keep his mouth shut and ruin everything for Harry. Now he has been shipped back home. I'm sure Matt will get a nasty letter from the Queen for opening his big mouth.

What Zeb said......and:

The man wanted to serve his country, do what he was trained for and be with his men.

Not be some Royal doorstop cutting ribbons and addressing groups of pensioners.

Kings and princes once upon a time were first in battle--alas, no more.

Kudos to Harry for being a man!

 

[fifty5]

IMHO, the whole issue of royalty and royalism underpins the controversy.

Only if one accepts the premise of monarchy is there any 'public interest' beyond mere celebrity voyeurism.

On the other hand, on either basis, if Harry, or his comrades had been killed or injured, there would be a publicity coup for the forces against whom he was fighting.

Knowlege of his whereabouts was to my mind a matter of military intelligence - and the blackout was justified.

 

[Guest]

Agreeing with fifty5.

To out Prince Harry in such a way not only endangered him but the rest of the soldiers in his company.

It was wrong.

 

[PrincessErin]

My opinion stems from the fact that we as the general public are not told exactly what is going with our troops. That information is classified because those on the other side will get that information and will put the lives of OUR soldiers at risk.

I don't think the press should have reported that he was on the front line. Who cares that a member of the royal family is a soldier?

Erin

 

[Lee Chambers]

I brought this topic up because I was listening to the BBC Global News Highlights at work this morning and they were discussing some of the backlash from their choice to keep quiet on the matter and the reporter read this part of a letter from one of their listeners:

"The failure of the British media to tell the truth about this just confirms in my mind just how untrustworthy you all are as news sources. How dare you enter into this Faustian pact with the army to deceive the public while at the same time portraying Harry as a normal soldier doing normal duties."

My opinion is that the British media did the right thing. This wasn't something that they never intended to report on, which is clear by the fact that they have so much footage and interviews of Harry serving in the field. They were going to air the story once he was safely returned home.

I used to be a journalism student and I believed in the idea of ethical journalism and a duty to tell the truth. But I decided against being a reporter when I read a story in the New York Times about how one of their own reporters had completely fabricated and plagiarized a story on Jessica Lynch after she had returned home. And the result of the in-house investigation showed that this man had plagiarized several other major stories over the course of two or three years. At that point I become disgusted with the entire field and the media has never failed to prove me right...until now.

I believe it is the duty of a journalist to tell the truth and to show as little bias as possible when they write a story. But the media has continually failed to live up to these standards and yet, at least in America,they continue to wave the banner of the 1st Amendment to justify their actions.

I think what pisses me off more than anything is the fact that people are throwing a fit over the British media's choice to stay quiet on this until Harry was supposed to return. When you don't consider the consequences of telling a story and look at nothing more than "How famous can I get if I tell the world about this?" or "How much money can I get if I tell the world about this?" you stop being a journalist and you become nothing more than a businessman who trades in lies, rumors and half-truths.

P.S. When I heard that guy say "Faustian pact" in the podcast, I laughed my ass off.

 

[Lee Chambers]

Knowlege of his whereabouts was to my mind a matter of military intelligence - and the blackout was justified.

I'm reminded of an instance several years ago during Christmas when President Bush made a surprise visit to the troops in Iraq on Christmas Day. As I recall, the press hounds who travel with the President got onto Air Force One, expecting to go to a certain destination as had been told to them previously. But once they were in the air, they were told "Yeah we're not going to Canada for lunch, we're headed for Iraq."

They were pissed. And when the rest of the media world found out, they were MORE pissed.

But they were pissed because they weren't able to talk about it before it happened. They were cut out of the loop and had to wait until they got back before they could do the report.

And while I have no love for Bush, at the same time I understand exactly what would have happened if people in Iraq had known he was coming ahead of time: every nut job with a pointy stick and a rock would have been crawling all over the base to get to him and a lot of good men and women would have been killed in the process trying to protect him.

But that would have been ok because the reporters would have gotten their story.

 

[3113]

It's certainly a delicate line to walk. I hate that the government has been censoring showing Iraq dead and doling out in drips info on events in Iraq, because that is part of what I need to know in order to make a decision about the war. I do get to vote on whether we stay or go and I can't make an informed decision on that if the facts I get are incomplete or incorrect.

Likewise, there is much on the news that I feel is not news, and I hate that the news wastes time on it--like personal info on celebrities. I might want to know a little something about a celebrity so I can decide to watch or not to watch their tv show, but I don't need to know if they got a parking ticket or are in the midst of a divorce. I know I'll get told anyway, but it's really not news.

That being the case, I can't see this news as being of any use in helping people to make an immediate and important decision (like to keep or get rid of the royal family). On the other side we have the fact that if this news got out a soldier's life would be in danger. I don't want any soldier to die because of a media story that would, in the end, be merely sensationalism, not useful and important information. So I think it valid that the news was kept under wraps. The whole story can come out now, and it does no one any damage that it had to wait till now to be told.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

It's unfair. I think everything should be made public. Next time Chaney or Bush go to Iraq I want the (Arab) World to know it ahead of time.

 

[Guest]

It's unfair. I think everything should be made public. Next time Chaney or Bush go to Iraq I want the (Arab) World to know it ahead of time.

Indeed.

 

[starrkers]

It's unfair. I think everything should be made public. Next time Chaney or Bush go to Iraq I want the (Arab) World to know it ahead of time.

That pretty much says it all.

Kudos to Harry for not using his royal status as an excuse not to do his job (he is a soldier after all).

 

[Lee Chambers]

That pretty much says it all.

Kudos to Harry for not using his royal status as an excuse not to do his job (he is a soldier after all).

I think that's what's really sad about a lot of the critics of the British media. If Harry had used his status to avoid combat duty then they would probably have their knickers in even more of a twist than they do now.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

It's sad that some low life bottom feeder like Matt Drudge has the ability to endanger the life of a young man trying to do the right thing, serving his country with honor.

 

[Weird Harold]

On one side you have those who applaud the British media for keeping the secret ...

Count me on that side.

Personally, I think "Live Breaking News" should be outlawed. There is so much mis-information and pointless conjecture in "Live Breaking News" that it isn't anything remotely resembling journalism and there is no possibility of "editorial judgement" or "journalistic ethics" being applied to the story.

Is the film and commentary of the Hindenburg crash any less moving or emotional for having had to wait for a couple of hours and editorial approval before being broadcast and several days before the film appeared in theater newsreels?

Is Walter Conkrite's(sp) announcement of President Kennedy's death any less moving for being pre-approved before being broadcast?

As much as people want immediate and "uncensored" news of every little thing that happens in the world, they don't NEED immediate and uncensored (by "editorial judgement" and "journalistic ethics," let alone government fiat) news coverage of most news stories -- an approaching tornado, hurricane, or locust swarm is about the things I can think of that require immediate "live breaking news" coverage.

 

[Carnevil9]

I have nothing but respect for Prince Harry; he is clearly a brave and true gentleman and deserving of our respect. I look forward to the day when he is the leader of one of the great nations on this planet.

That being said, it scares the shit out of me when the press and a government suspend their natural enmity toward each other for the "common good" - meaning good for them, and not necessarily for the citizenry. This is a very scary precedent.

 

[Weird Harold]

That being said, it scares the shit out of me when the press and a government suspend their natural enmity toward each other for the "common good" - meaning good for them, and not necessarily for the citizenry. This is a very scary precedent.

It's not a "precedent" at all -- if anything it is a concession to long-standing precedents in journalistic ethics (and a rejection of the increasing violation of those precedents.)

 

[oggbashan]

I have nothing but respect for Prince Harry; he is clearly a brave and true gentleman and deserving of our respect. I look forward to the day when he is the leader of one of the great nations on this planet.

That being said, it scares the shit out of me when the press and a government suspend their natural enmity toward each other for the "common good" - meaning good for them, and not necessarily for the citizenry. This is a very scary precedent.

We are at war. During a war it is assumed, and sometimes enforced, that the press and media do not publish information that could help an enemy.

The Falklands War was a good example of the media cooperating with the military. Some US military were envious and wish that Vietnam could have been covered that way.

It is now almost impossible to prevent news from leaking via the internet. Is that good or bad? Probably both.

The news blackout on Prince Harry was good for the citizenry if you consider that the citizenry include our troops in a war zone. If the Taleban had been aware that Prince Harry was present they could have increased their efforts in that area and many citizen British troops could have been killed.

Og

 

[DesertPirate]

We are at war. During a war it is assumed, and sometimes enforced, that the press and media do not publish information that could help an enemy.

The Falklands War was a good example of the media cooperating with the military. Some US military were envious and wish that Vietnam could have been covered that way.

It is now almost impossible to prevent news from leaking via the internet. Is that good or bad? Probably both.

The news blackout on Prince Harry was good for the citizenry if you consider that the citizenry include our troops in a war zone. If the Taleban had been aware that Prince Harry was present they could have increased their efforts in that area and many citizen British troops could have been killed.

Og

What most seem to be missing is that nobody told the news organizations what to do. The were asked and did this voluntarily! There are some members of the press with ethics.

 

[trysail]

Face it- the media and the types who go into the field are, essentially, professional gossips. As a generality, people attracted to that business are genotypes who are no more capable of keeping their mouths shut than barking dogs. There are, as always, exceptions to this generalization.

Nonetheless, the all-too-human tendency to talk first and think later is one reason I am extremely skeptical of most conspiracy theories.

 

[Katyusha]

I'm reminded of an instance several years ago during Christmas when President Bush made a surprise visit to the troops in Iraq on Christmas Day. As I recall, the press hounds who travel with the President got onto Air Force One, expecting to go to a certain destination as had been told to them previously. But once they were in the air, they were told "Yeah we're not going to Canada for lunch, we're headed for Iraq."

They were pissed. And when the rest of the media world found out, they were MORE pissed.

But they were pissed because they weren't able to talk about it before it happened. They were cut out of the loop and had to wait until they got back before they could do the report.

And while I have no love for Bush, at the same time I understand exactly what would have happened if people in Iraq had known he was coming ahead of time: every nut job with a pointy stick and a rock would have been crawling all over the base to get to him and a lot of good men and women would have been killed in the process trying to protect him.

But that would have been ok because the reporters would have gotten their story.

I do think the press goes too far with their drivel about the First Amendment and "the public's right to know," and this is why. People seem to think they had a right to know where Prince Harry really was and what he was doing...I don't have the right to know what my own cousin is doing over there, because her mission is very highly classified. I don't know where she is, where she's going, what her job is, I won't know when she gets a promotion, the list goes on. The press, if they followed her and reported on her, would put her and her comrades in unnecessary danger, destroy her mission before she even started, and would also seriously impede any progress we hope to make over there (not that I think we're making progress at all anyway). Is it not the same thing with every soldier over there, including Prince Harry?

He was in danger anyway but the press would've placed him in a lot more danger unnecessarily. But he chose to serve his country this way and he was adamant about not receiving special treatment because he's a member of the royal family. He would have REQUIRED a HELL of a lot of special treatment had the press reported on him like people are saying they should have.

Honestly, the press pisses me off.

 

[DesertPirate]

The press in general wants sales(print) or ratings(TV/radio) they don't care is they cause someone to get killed if they get the story out first. For every action there are consequences isn't it time to require some judgement on the part of the press?

 

[3113]

Honestly, the press pisses me off.

Me, too, but let's face facts here--the press is fighting for their lives against the internet, desperately trying to get people to read newspapers and watch news shows and pay their salaries, rather than relying on free information uploaded by the man-on-the-street. And they've learned from Fox News and tabloids that "playing dirty," as it were, is what keeps them alive.

Not, of course, that this hasn't happened before. From Penny Dreadfuls to the observation in the movie Citizen Kane about "making the news," selling the news has often required salacious gossip rather than facts--and a lot of song and dance and busty women as news anchors. Periods when reporters were encouraged to view their jobs as that of truth-seeking knights, when it was very serious and respectable...well, they've been rare.

The public can be disgusted by the way news and paparazzi work. But only when the public reads and watches only news that is, well, honorable, factual, and the rest, and rejects any news that plays fast and lose and dirty and inaccurate will this feeding frenzy change. A government can impose rules on the news, but only the public paying for "real" news will change how and what is reported.

Right now is a transition period in news and news reporting, just as television transitioned news from radio and newspaper reports, and I honestly don't know what it's going to morph into.

 

[jomar]

What most seem to be missing is that nobody told the news organizations what to do. The were asked and did this voluntarily! There are some members of the press with ethics.

Voluntarily with the promise of getting full access to the footage of Harry at war. I applaud it that the press kept quiet. Screw Drudge. Then again, the cynical side of me thinks the timing quite convenient to give Harry a taste, some cred and back to safety after a short stint.

 

[Weird Harold]

The press in general wants sales(print) or ratings(TV/radio) they don't care is they cause someone to get killed if they get the story out first. For every action there are consequences isn't it time to require some judgement on the part of the press?

Yes the "Tabloid Media" do care if someone gets killed -- especially if they can catch it on "film" and broadcast it live.

If they can catch some horibble, bloody tragedy on tape, they can use the runbber-neck geek bait, "viewers with weak stomachs should turn away now." and insure that millions of additional viewers will be glued to their sets to watch sombody die.

Real, Ethical journalism is pretty much dead and since nobody really cares it's going to eventually die completely and the paparazi mentality is going to gain absolute control of the media -- and then civilization will end the following tuesday.