Media Was Right not to Reveal Prince Harry’s Mini-Tour in Afghanistan
March 3, 2008 by Eric Eggertson
Filed under Marketing
Okay, so a member of the British royal family went into a battle zone and the media didn’t spill the beans.
Sherylynne Starkie of Strive Public Relations isn’t impressed: “It makes you wonder what else they’re not telling us,” she says, and quotes John Snow of the UK’s Channel 4: “One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust the media again.”
Yes, the war in Afghanistan is a major political issue. So nothing about the coverage is neutral.
But the rationale for maintaining radio silence about Harry’s active duty in a war zone was to prevent an individual soldier from becoming a special target of militants fighting a guerrilla war.
(Update: Richard Bailey slams a critic who calls the whole thing a publicity stunt.)
Is there some code of conduct that the Taliban are following that I’m not aware of? Was there intention to keep the story secret for any longer than during the tour of duty?
Media organizations and governments must be very careful about agreements they enter into to keep things private that the public has a right to know.
So why are embargoes for budget briefings okay, but embargoes on a soldier’s whereabouts aren’t? Both agreements are in place to prevent unnecessary harm.
In the UK, there are all sorts of tidbits of fascinating information that are covered by the Official Secrets Act. Shocking conspiracy, or part of running a modern country?
In Canada, we don’t publish the names of young people charged with criminal offences. Nor do we publish the names of people accused of sexual assault, if their name will make the identity of their victim public. Shocking collusion by the media, or a civilized approach to managing information in a modern country?
When The Drudge Report or any other media outlet reveals the approximate location of a person who will obviously be targeted for assassination, is that the media fulfilling a higher moral cause, or mindless drones helping militant groups commit violence against groups of soldiers?
I don’t see the higher moral cause, unless there was a plan to keep the prince’s participation from the public even after he finished his tour.
Technorati Tags: prince harry, royal family, british army, afghanistan, war, media blackout, collusion, public relations, news organizations
The missing piece is the periodic announcement of the policy. What it is, how it works, and the checks and balances.
The vast majority of news outlets do not have an ombudsman, and the “outraged public” wouldn’t know what one does anyway.
If it makes you have any faith at all in common sense, many right-wing bloggers are ditching Drudge — erasing links and pledging to not feed his traffic — on account of his reporting of this story. Common sense trumps ideology.
Considering how seldom a member of the royal family gets to actually do something, rather than walk around like a mechanical doll, it’s sad that the plug got pulled on Harry’s time on the front lines.
We almost forget that they are capable of living real lives, if others would let them.
The Australian rag and Drudge who published his whereabouts are fools for doing what they did. It really is a crime, it’ so bad what they did to Harry.
I do agree with the post. Responsible management of information is one of mass media common failures (and I say that working as a journalist). Did any taxpayer in Britain desperately needed to know about Harry’s service right now? If it was a temporary embargo as it seems, it was right and well done and there were a lot of good reasons to enforce it. The examples you give about names of sexual offenders are also right for me. But many media companies use the “freedom of information” punch line as an alibi for pure showbiz greed.