Whose Prince? Whose War?
By Editor on March 4, 2008 9:49 pm
In an increasingly global world, where one of the instruments of globalisation is the media, how is national interest to be negotiated with international actors? Who is ‘foreign’? Rohit Chopra looks at the crucial questions buried in the Prince Harry media blitz.
SINCE DRUDGE REPORT broke the news about Prince Harry serving in Afghanistan, several news organizations have carried stories about the ethical implications of the decision. The media agreement to stay silent on the issue has been the subject of self-scrutiny by the press, with prominent voices, such as Channel 4 presenter Jon Snow, arguing the event could be detrimental to media credibility. Consumers of the media, in contrast, seem to approve of the embargo, reacting negatively to both critics of the embargo and Drudge himself.
In this media blitz, it is likely some important issues will be relegated to the backburner. These concerns include: the limits and license of media in a global world; the global versus national obligations of media organizations; the connection between particular media formats and ethical imperatives; and the ambivalent relationship of media to narratives of nationalism and military heroism. Addressing these questions at the outset may productively complicate the discussion on media ethics.
In response to the Drudge leak, the British army chief said, “I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us.”
He goes on to say: “This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations.
“After a lengthy period of discussion between the MoD and the editors of regional, national and international media, the editors took the commendable attitude to restrain their coverage.”
The reference to “foreign websites” is ostensibly a reference to the Drudge Report. But the attribution of ‘foreignness’ to the publication demands a closer look.
Who is foreign?
The UK and the US are part of a joint front in the war, and the UK, arguably, joined the war at the behest of the US. Drudge is an American citizen, and one who, for all his muckraking, has made his presence felt in American public and political life, even if he is on the margins of respectable journalism himself. Drudge’s profile in The Telegraph notes he is the “world’s most powerful journalist“, sought after by Republicans as well as Democrats.
As a basic principle of literary and textual analysis, one cannot know what exactly the British general intended by the invocation of foreigness. It may be asked, though, whether in his statement foreigness operates simply as a descriptive term here or an evaluative phrase. Given the context of its use, to some readers it may well be read as a lack of commitment to a British or Western cause and a corresponding lack of responsible British or Western values. In the general’s words, the upholding of national responsibility by the British media is contrasted with the irresponsibility of the foreign media. The international media, on the other hand, are commended for their cooperation with the British armed forces.
With due consideration of the problematic implications of overreading the general’s words, the distinction between an international media, supposedly made up of a responsible group of actors, and a more fractious set of foreign media actors opens up some crucial lines of inquiry for media professionals and scholars.
In an increasingly global world, where one of the instruments and embodiments of globalization is the media itself, how is national interest to be negotiated with international actors? Who is the imagined audience of this global or international media? Who defines membership in global media? Who is foreign to this world? Who is included within its ambit? On what basis? Who in the global media space has access to privileged information? On what terms and conditions?
The media space in new media markets may be, partly at least, structured by alliances between local news organizations or corporations and multinationals headquartered in the West. This trend is likely to continue in India and other new arenas for global media markets.
The embargo controversy begs the question of who decides the position taken by the particular non-Western affiliate in question. Is there a policy that all such media affiliates anywhere in the world are expected to follow? Would the editors-in-chief of these affiliates be consulted about discussions? Did they have significant autonomy in the decision-marking process if it was of a consultative and consensual nature? Given that these news establishments and organizations are subject to the principles of national sovereignty, does (and should) a decision taken by an arm of the British state apply to them?
These issues also highlight the complex and vexed relationship between the apparatus of global financial capital that transcends national boundaries and the reach of national sovereignty.
Is Drudge Report ‘press’?
It is perhaps not accidental that an internet-only news initative broke the story. While sites like the Drudge Report do have a national location and identity, their institutional relationship with structures of political authority arguably grant them greater autonomy than other kinds of media organizations. Yet at the same time, Drudge also violated an agreement that the ‘press’ had entered into. In what sense precisely, one might query, is the Drudge Report part of the press? How, one might also ask, do constraints on autonomy influence ethical imperatives for new media as opposed to traditional media?
And, finally, it bears noting that in connection with Harry’s service in Afghanistan, the theater of war is depicted in several articles in the British Press as a crucible in which both individual and national character are forged. The London Times chronicled the transformation of Harry from “wastrel to warrior prince“. An article in the Telegraph, UK approvingly noted Harry’s newfound maturity, commenting on the fact that his example was likely to inspire many to sign up to enlist in the war effort. The narrative here is one of simultaneous personal redemption and national valor.
This narrative stands independently of the case for and against the war. Similarly, it is completely delinked from the discussions about the possible success or failure of the American forces in Iraq. The telos of war as a moral experience is separated from the concrete political objectives of the occupation of Iraq. How these parallel narratives complement and contradict each other might be the subject of an interesting story.
In the days to come, the debate and controversy surrounding the Drudge decision will continue to swirl in cyberspace, on the airwaves, and in print. Hopefully the discussion on the ethics of the embargo will encompass a vibrant, engaged debate on these related issues. The significance of Harry’s decision to fight in the war which papers across the political spectrum, from the Telegraph to the Guardian, have commented on is surely deserving of analysis. So is the mode in which the media itself have framed — and continue to frame — the event.
This is an updated version, revised on March 9, 2008.
See also: Harry Soldier and the Order of Pressmen
Image: Sunil Krishnan
Your Thoughts (8 Comments)
March 5th, 2008 1:30 am by Lloyd
March 5th, 2008 1:41 am by raju narisetti
The article reflects a poor understanding of facts. Both the Indian examples cited (CNN-IBN and MINT) are Indian media organizations that either license Western media brand names (CNN by IBN) or content (WSJ by Mint) so all the questions raised by the author about editorial policies/independence don’t apply as the Western organizations have nothing to do with day-to-day running of either outfits. Poorly conducted research and faulty analysis based on it really hurts the credibility of media critics and columns such as this one.
Raju Narisetti
Managing Editor
Mint
Raju.N@livemint.com
March 5th, 2008 4:09 am by Rohit
Raju
Thank you for your response. I would submit that my argument stands.
Even if it is not legally incumbent on CNN-IBN or Mint to follow the decisions taken by CNN or the Wall Street Journal on a matter, the question about autonomy is valid. Would CNN-IBN, for instance, engage in a detailed critique about ,say, CNN’s coverage of the Iraq war? Would Mint similarly critique the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of the subprime crisis or carry articles critical of Rupert Murdoch?
My article made the broad point that the arrangements between the media organizations are alliances or joint initiatives. Brand and content licensing arrangements fall under the purview of the normative meaning of both terms.
What exactly is the nature of the brand licensing agreements? If the details of these agreements are made public, that too would surely make for an engaged discussion about the implications of such ventures for the autonomy of the institutions concerned. I am not suggesting that their autonomy necessarily *would* be comprised. But simply that it is an obvious question that arises and one that needs debate and discussion among mediapersons, academics, and the public at large.
We would be glad to post a more detailed response by you on the subject on Interjunction.
Rohit Chopra
Editor, Interjunction
March 5th, 2008 4:49 am by Rohit
LLoyd:
Thanks for your response. I too think the term ‘press’ should be an inclusive one. The Matt Drudge phenomenon raises interesting questions about our assumptions regarding what is legitimately part of the press and what is not.
Thanks
Rohit Chopra
March 8th, 2008 9:32 am by salil tripathi
Rohit,
I go with Raju on this one – but full disclosure; I write for Mint and for WSJ and a few others. Here’s why: the issue you seem to be concerned about is the conflict of interest or influence on editorial policies due to the foreignness of the partner. This implies that there is a unified Indian agenda, or a unified American agenda (using the CNN/WSJ analogy here). As we know from both countries, the media in each place is diverse, with a wide range of views. We know there is no unified US agenda on many issues (Parag Khanna makes this point in a forthcoming book, that there’s no one US foreign policy; there’s a Bill Gates foreign policy, a George Soros foreign policy, a Republican foreign policy, a Democrat foreign policy, a fundamentalist Christian foreign policy, an ACLU foreign policy, a Planned Parenthood foreign policy). Many of these find resounding echoes in India, too. If an Indian paper, under license, echoes such views, is it because of that influence? Or because of a belief, (in say liberalization or free markets)? The challenge becomes more interesting when there’s a real difference of view: such as, an Indian publication advocating an overthrow of Musharraf, and an American one saying he’s needed for war on terror; or an Indian newspaper supporting outsourcing, an American one opposing it (unlikely, in the WSJ/Mint case).
The examples you cite – concerning Murdoch and sub-prime crisis – I don’t see them emerging as real conflicts within such partnerships. The WSJ will, for example, criticize bailout of banks in America; Mint will be critical of Chidambaram writing off farm debt. What Mint thinks of sub-prime would not be a matter of great concern for Wall Street or for WSJ, for that matter, to be viewed as a real conflict.
It is interesting that you note the influence of foreign licensing once such arrangements have become transparent. What about the relationship Blitz may have had with the Shah of Iran, or with the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? What about the influence the Left has on N Ram at the Hindu? What about more mundane conflicts of interests, such as the Hindu prominently running a story of Ram’s daughter winning the best student award at Columbia University’s J-School? Why did the Mylapore-Kanchipuram Tam-Brahm Society Newsletter story become such a prominent one for India’s only so-called secular newspaper?
And what about the far more insidious influence of proprietors within India? Vijaypat Singhania had two scalps – Nihal Singh and Vinod Mehta – in rapid succession at the Indian Post; the Times of India converted a legitimate tax inquiry into the affairs of the Jain family into a human rights crusade; a Times editor in Bombay suppressed a story about his father, a celebrity in his own right, when the father was raided for foreign exchange violations? The conflict of interest spawned by the Private Treaties? Those are far more problematic for an Indian reader, than any editorial line a foreign publisher might have on an issue, which its Indian licensee may or may not agree with. If CNN/IBN and Mint were full-scale subsidiaries, that would make it a different issue. But so long as the arrangement is of picking up material for a fee on an exclusive basis, I don’t see a problem here.
Thanks;
Salil
March 8th, 2008 12:39 pm by raju narisetti
Rohit
Again, the question you pose doesn’t reflect an understanding of facts, at least in relation to Mint. WSJ’s content (selected by Mint editors from hundreds of stories each day) runs on clearly marked WSJ pages and that is the end of the their involvement with Mint. (I would love for WSJ to have a larger involvement in Mint, by the way, having spent 14 years there, as I am proud of their news values.) But, I have run NYT/IHT stories as well including–since you asked–their stories on Rupert Murdoch (which I assume by your logic won’t be favorable per se.)
My issue is simple. Questions need to be raised on facts not hypothesis that is based on poor information and unrelated to reality.
Sure, your larger questions may be valid but I am responding to your citing of Mint without bothering to know the facts.
Critics have an extra responsibility to get their facts right so their criticism can be taken seriously.
As the only newspaper in India with a clearly articulated Code of Journalistic Conduct–it is at the top our website’s home page at http://www.livemint.com, and one that takes its ethics/values very seriously, I tend to take questions about our news values/biases very seriously.
Raju Narisetti
Managing Editor
Mint
March 9th, 2008 1:48 pm by Editor
Raju:
Thanks for your mail. Point taken, the correction is made in the article.
Thanks also for your critique and engaging with the article. I would be very interested in your response to the broader issue, and its implications for the autonomy of media actors in India or elsewhere. My argument is that any kind of alliance, say between Western and Indian media organizations, does take place in a broader economy– of information, facts, and representation– which is itself structured by power differences between actors.
The point is not that there is some necessary agenda that is imposed on one party by the other. Rather, the question I am interested in examining is how this larger structure translates into constraints on actors. I agree as Salil suggests (to whose post I will respond shortly), that there are other dynamics and questions at work here as well.
Regards
Rohit Chopra
Editor, Interjunction
March 9th, 2008 9:50 pm by Editor
Salil,
Thanks for your detailed response and incisive mail. Your critique is well taken, and I am in agreement with many of your arguments. I agree that the same questions about media autonomy arise with regard to the actions of indigenous capitalists, influential individuals or groups, and the Left in India and elsewhere. I also agree that media do not reflect a unified or monolithic national agenda, which, in any case, is difficult to define. And the threat to sovereignty, of course, is routinely invoked by states and governments to suppress dissent and freedom of expression.
My argument is that these actions do not take place in a vacuum, whether in a national space from which outsiders are barred or in a space where global or transnational conglomerates can now participate through a variety of arrangements. The common element here is power. The journalistic field, or media field, more broadly, is structured by power relations, often between actors with unequal power, and these power dynamics will affect the exercise of choices and outcomes. My point is not that one party– say, an Indian media organization– in these arrangements lacks agency in exercising choice. The question of interest, rather, is: what is the set of choices available to such agents at all? What are the criteria of selection, implict or explicit, of content? What are the conventions by which something is established as journalistic fact?
This relates to the central question you raise about what constitutes a real difference of view in the context of (a) a publication with national or global reach, (b) a national media space, and (c) transnational media spaces.
My inquiry also concerns how the entry of global or transnational actors alters the dynamics of the field. I am by no means suggesting that the impact will be uniformly negative. As you point out, the insistence on transparency regarding the arrangements itself draws attention to earlier treaties that were, so to speak, off the radar.
My contention here is that with the addition of the global dimension, the relationship between national sovereignty and media autonomy will need to be significantly rethought, theorized, and studied.
In the case of the Prince Harry embargo, with respect to the actions and coverage of some of the British and American media organizations, the questions that arise may be posed thus: what is the nature of the imagined community of readers here? Does it include people from all nations and societies? Does it privilege certain readers over others? Does it privilege a national or regional readership over a truly global readership?
You make a conceptual distinction between the status of a media organization that licenses content and a media organization that is a fully owned subsidiary of a transnational conglomerate or entity headquartered in another national context. Again, that point is well taken. At the same time, I think it is worthwhile to ask the question in each case. In some cases, the answer might be that the question does not apply at all and is, consequently, trivial; in other cases, it may illuminate the workings behind editorial decisions and point to specific ways in which globalization both enables and constrains media in various contexts.
Similar questions also apply to the global academy, especially with regard to some of the initiatives between, say, American universities and universities in the so-called developing world, an issue that I have explored elsewhere. Here too, it is not the case that the partners in the developing world lack autonomy or that their actions are determined in a simplistic manner by the other party. But at the same time, the knowledge that is being exchanged and shared does circulate in a particular economy which is shaped by different actors in profoundly unequal ways. A more detailed comparison is a topic for another article on Interjunction.
Once again, many thanks.
Regards
Rohit
|
|||||||||
Are you saying the Drudge Report is press? Or that it isn’t? Personally I think Drudge serves his readers — and he deserves to the ‘press’ label as much as the British newspapers you mention.