I asked Delroy Alexander, a former business and investigative reporter at the Chicago Tribune who is now a senior tutor at the Journalism Center at Harlow, the UK's oldest reporter training facility, what his students thought of the deal the press there made with the UK Army to hide the prince's whereabouts. Here's his report:
In each of my lessons this week, I posed the question...Was it right for the national media to agree to an embargo over Prince Harry's Afghan expedition.
Almost all the students said they believed the Government was right to try and impose an embargo, for Prince Harry's safety and that of the 180 soldiers in his outfit. Many did not think it was a big deal, could not see that any broader issues might be at stake and almost all thought it was justified and a good thing.
Then I posed a serious of questions, which were hotly debated. What if the stories in the paper were not that Prince Harry was out there but that he had been shot and killed a week ago. Would that change people's opinion.That posed a clear dilemma for the students. Many began to question the media's role, suggesting that they would be upset at the idea that something like that could happen without people knowing.
I also asked the question of whether there might be other things happening that we don't know about. That drew sharp silence and a pretty pensive mood. Some people responded by saying they were comfortable with it, in the national interest. Others said they were not. That it was worrying that this could be done.
We discussed how it was possible for a few powerful people to decide what we all read. I mean, there are eight national newspapers, lots of TV and radio stations, Internet sites etc. How is it possible to keep something like this quiet. Also, once The Drudge report had written about Prince Harry...extensive coverage was given. Even though he remained at the front with his platoon.
We looked at the broader role of the media. That it might be uncomfortable....but one of our essential jobs is to gather news and tell people about it. I asked whether it was our job for the reader to decide what we publish and why. We then looked for other examples of censorship....which is what we called this, even if it was voluntarily.
Many war examples came to mind. Stories that might not be published, images that might never be seen. We talked about the impact on reader trust and believability. That picking and choosing on behalf of the reader was a dangerous game. That readers have in many respects a right to decide for themselves. But if they don't know, how can they decide about an issue and make informed decisions.
We discussed whether this undermined the Government's argument that it was worried about Harry's safety. If he was still there and detailed accounts of where and what he was doing were readily available, why had he not been flown home immediately. I asked what kind of stories we might have seen of Prince Harry fighting the enemy and his triumphant return if the news hadn't leaked out. I asked about the PR value of the person third in line to the throne, looking like a hero...instead of having to return home on the retreat over fears to his safety.
We also discussed war coverage in general. That enemy forces often target scenes where the media has cameras and reporters to gain publicity. If the army is comfortable with average soldiers being at risk due to media coverage, why should they be a different standard for the Prince.
I also asked if Prince Harry had exercised any choices. Given his position,was it not his choice to go and potentially put his colleagues at risk. We then did a quick exercise, where I pretended to be a journalist wanted by a group called the Christian Warriors. The group, had been blowing up journalists and publicly said they were going to get me. I had 24-hour security but had warned everybody that I might have to leave at short notice if there was a threat. I asked whether it was fair for me to put the rest of the class at risk.....most said absolutely not. I then asked...well why should Prince Harry be any different?
After this we summed up, with the help of students.
There was growing concern about the whole idea of an embargo and why the national media had gone along with it. There was concern about the role of journalist and the tough decisions we sometimes face. We agreed that part of that responsibility meant holding rich and powerful people, like the Prince,to account for the decisions they make. And that he and the Army had a public relations interest that may have gone beyond just his safety.The media had a broader role than just being aware that it may put his safety at risk. It appeared comfortable with the idea that its reporting might threaten the safety of many ordinary soldiers. But when approached by some powerful people they had colluded with them to keep facts away from the public.There was broad concern about potential other issues where an embargo may have taken place and the rationale for it. In general, the students felt after the discussions that embargoes, even this one, were hard to justify.
In each of my lessons this week, I posed the question...Was it right for the national media to agree to an embargo over Prince Harry's Afghan expedition.
Almost all the students said they believed the Government was right to try and impose an embargo, for Prince Harry's safety and that of the 180 soldiers in his outfit. Many did not think it was a big deal, could not see that any broader issues might be at stake and almost all thought it was justified and a good thing.
Then I posed a serious of questions, which were hotly debated. What if the stories in the paper were not that Prince Harry was out there but that he had been shot and killed a week ago. Would that change people's opinion.That posed a clear dilemma for the students. Many began to question the media's role, suggesting that they would be upset at the idea that something like that could happen without people knowing.
I also asked the question of whether there might be other things happening that we don't know about. That drew sharp silence and a pretty pensive mood. Some people responded by saying they were comfortable with it, in the national interest. Others said they were not. That it was worrying that this could be done.
We discussed how it was possible for a few powerful people to decide what we all read. I mean, there are eight national newspapers, lots of TV and radio stations, Internet sites etc. How is it possible to keep something like this quiet. Also, once The Drudge report had written about Prince Harry...extensive coverage was given. Even though he remained at the front with his platoon.
We looked at the broader role of the media. That it might be uncomfortable....but one of our essential jobs is to gather news and tell people about it. I asked whether it was our job for the reader to decide what we publish and why. We then looked for other examples of censorship....which is what we called this, even if it was voluntarily.
Many war examples came to mind. Stories that might not be published, images that might never be seen. We talked about the impact on reader trust and believability. That picking and choosing on behalf of the reader was a dangerous game. That readers have in many respects a right to decide for themselves. But if they don't know, how can they decide about an issue and make informed decisions.
We discussed whether this undermined the Government's argument that it was worried about Harry's safety. If he was still there and detailed accounts of where and what he was doing were readily available, why had he not been flown home immediately. I asked what kind of stories we might have seen of Prince Harry fighting the enemy and his triumphant return if the news hadn't leaked out. I asked about the PR value of the person third in line to the throne, looking like a hero...instead of having to return home on the retreat over fears to his safety.
We also discussed war coverage in general. That enemy forces often target scenes where the media has cameras and reporters to gain publicity. If the army is comfortable with average soldiers being at risk due to media coverage, why should they be a different standard for the Prince.
I also asked if Prince Harry had exercised any choices. Given his position,was it not his choice to go and potentially put his colleagues at risk. We then did a quick exercise, where I pretended to be a journalist wanted by a group called the Christian Warriors. The group, had been blowing up journalists and publicly said they were going to get me. I had 24-hour security but had warned everybody that I might have to leave at short notice if there was a threat. I asked whether it was fair for me to put the rest of the class at risk.....most said absolutely not. I then asked...well why should Prince Harry be any different?
After this we summed up, with the help of students.
There was growing concern about the whole idea of an embargo and why the national media had gone along with it. There was concern about the role of journalist and the tough decisions we sometimes face. We agreed that part of that responsibility meant holding rich and powerful people, like the Prince,to account for the decisions they make. And that he and the Army had a public relations interest that may have gone beyond just his safety.The media had a broader role than just being aware that it may put his safety at risk. It appeared comfortable with the idea that its reporting might threaten the safety of many ordinary soldiers. But when approached by some powerful people they had colluded with them to keep facts away from the public.There was broad concern about potential other issues where an embargo may have taken place and the rationale for it. In general, the students felt after the discussions that embargoes, even this one, were hard to justify.
1 comment:
I agree with the students that his direct wareabouts should be kept quiet for his and his comrades safety, but once the news is out I believe it is the press's job to completely inform the people on what they find important. In the UK what the prince and other royalty do is very important and Prince Harry should be proud that he is serving his country and should not try and hide that.
Post a Comment