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’?

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

Home