True Journalism v. That Which Definitely Isn’t
Britain’s military commanders were considering on Friday whether to withdraw Prince Harry from Afghanistan after Internet leaks he had been secretly serving as a combat soldier on front lines for 2-1/2 months.
The leaks have raised concern that Harry could now become what officials term a high-value target for al Qaeda and other Islamist militants.
Harry, 23, was deployed to fight against the Taliban in the southern Afghan region of Helmand in December, seven months after plans to send him to Iraq were scrapped following threats from Iraqi militants to kidnap or kill him.
The military posted him only after the British media and selected members of the international press agreed not to report his “presence until he had returned from a scheduled 4-6 month deployment. The embargo was broken on Thursday when German, Australian and U.S. Web sites reported he was in Afghanistan.
The breaking of the embargo, a rare agreement in Britain’s usually free-for-all media environment, infuriated the military…
Actually, it was “broken” by one web site in particular. But first, speaking only for myself of course, I have to say that the Prince serving in Afghanistan isn’t much of a “scoop”. If you think about it, one probably suspected something was going on, given that the Prince’s unit was reported some weeks ago as due to deploy to Afghanistan, and the Prince himself had fallen out of public view of late.
However, perhaps sensing something in the back of your mind is very different from having it splashed all over everything in an untimely manner, allowing an enemy perhaps to profit from what is revealed. This story is stated in today’s Independent as having been sourced originally at an Australian women’s magazine, New Idea. Curiously, a visit to that august publication leads one to no such story currently, but a search under “Prince Harry” does turn up this:
Interestingly, the link for that number 3 now goes not to a February 14 story by that title, but to his basic biography. How long that has been the case is unclear, but given that Taliban fighters don’t seem New Idea’s target audience. . .
. . . if some of them did happen to stumble on it, they would hardly be viewing it as a quality source for British military intelligence anyway.
Drudge is different, because CNN — and then Al Jazeera — follows. What is clear is that the “breaking” of this story globally two weeks later by Mr Drudge (the web site considered responsible) demonstrates what is an essential difference between true journalism and that which definitely isn’t: there is no need for me, as a news customer, to know this story . . . now.
It could have waited. Real journalists knew that. But non-journalism possesses no sense of responsibility when somehow finding itself in possession of vital — even life v. death — “insider information”; it cares about nothing other than eyeballs in front of screens. New Idea included. (But it would hardly be surprising also, given its remote location and general topic matter, that New Idea might not have even known of the pool blackout arrangement. Which may be another reason the Prince’s story has at some time since web publication evidently been hastily pulled down.)
The Telegraph’s Toby Harnden also tells us:
…This week, he posted a photograph of Barack Obama dressed in the tribal garb of a Somali elder during a 2006 trip to Africa…
…Just as he revealed details of Bill Clinton’s tawdry affair with Miss Lewinsky while “Newsweek” editors agonised over whether to publish the story, Drudge posted the news of Prince Harry’s front-line service against the Taliban on-line without regard to any niceties. Within an hour, Buckingham Palace had lifted the embargo and Prince Harry was the lead item on CNN…
Posting a photo of Sen Obama in Somali dress, or passing on the tale of President Clinton and Ms Lewinsky’s, uh, dress, are vastly different informational matters than meddling inside the realm of military professionalism, and security in a combat zone. Yet Mr Harnden’s Telegraph piece on Mr Drudge possesses this ridiculous headline:
Matt Drudge: world’s most powerful journalist
That’s insulting to journalists — of whom we suspect Mr Harnden considers himself one — because, no, Mr Drudge is not; because he’s not a journalist. Indeed, if one proclaims there is no difference now between “true journalism” and “new media”, well, we’ve just seen a major one courtesy of this episode: “journalism” isn’t about merely passing on information (anyone can gossip, as New Idea also shows us), but appreciating how to do so. Now, as a result of that non-journalist’s loose mouth, serving soldiers may today be in much greater danger than yesterday.
Similarly, back in late May 1944, while most sensed it was coming, the enemy didn’t know for certain when, or exactly where the blow would land. However, had Mr Drudge somehow gotten wind of specifics in advance, there is not the slightest reason to believe he would not have “without regard to any niceties” posted what true journalists (“At 9.06 on the dull grey morning of 6 June 1944, I landed in Hitler’s Europe…”) entrusted with the news to come then had been keeping quiet until it was safe to report. On June 5, he’d have also graffittied the coming of D-Day on his “web site”.
…Matt Drudge owns a luxurious Mediterranean-style stucco house on Rivo Alto Island in Florida’s Biscayne Bay…
Yes, Biscayne Bay is a beautiful and a safe place. Especially compared to Helmand province. What an informational hero Mr Drudge is.
Anyone who thinks to want to pass him information regarding anything truly important, ought first seriously to consider ALL of the above.
_____________________________
That doesn’t mean that some journalists do not — even now — try, uh, still to remain responsible. The BBC notes:
Many of the papers are making up for lost time after weeks of sitting on a story they were bursting to tell…
…Only the Independent and the Morning Star have no mention at all of Harry on their front pages…
As to the former, that would be about what one would expect.
[NOTE: I have made a few changes to the initial post, mostly regarding New Idea magazine.]
UPDATE: The BBC reports:
Harry withdrawn from Afghanistan
The Telegraph breaks down who seems to have said what first.
Also, it was as might have been suspected. The Guardian:
…Today New Idea pleaded ignorance of knowingly breaking the embargo. It simply wasn’t aware of its existence, explaining in a statement: “The story was published on Monday, January 7. Since then New Idea has received no comment from the British Ministry of Defence. We take these matters very seriously and would never knowingly break an embargo. We regret any issues the revelation of this story in America has caused today.”…
…the point is that the Australian and German reports [which followed on from New Idea's] did not stampede the British media into action. Why then did Drudge make a difference? I guess because he is more widely read…
Sometimes, there’s just no putting one over on some in major media. A small celeb-centered publication in Australia prints a story or two even few outside of the “blackout” much notice, and then another more one credible follows, and then it appears in a German-language publication . . .
. . . and then Drudge sees it (but does he speak German?), and plasters it on his front page. With his publication, naturally, all heck breaks out because he is far more widely read, and is also outside of the “British blackout” area.
But something also leads one to suspect that of course “scooper” Mr Drudge would have known there was a “British blackout”. (There’s always seemingly a “British blackout” of such matters.) However, as is his wont, he likely chose to ignore it, and so look like he got the big “scoop” on the story . . . no one else dared report. [Oooooooh.]
