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

IN TIMES OF WAR, when PR mates unashamedly with frenzied nationalism, heroes are born by the dozen. It is a union the national media facilitates joyfully, never mind the ethical questions ignored therein.

Prince Harry’s rebirth is remarkable even by that standard. If in the past the media had only been passive or active participants in such passions, this time around it has been pronouncedly proactive.

I am all for responsible journalism, but I am not convinced by the ‘responsibility’ the British media showed in Harry’s Afghan adventures. I have three issues with it.

One, like Jon Snow, I believe the decision erodes media credibility. Particularly so, given the premeditated nature of the event. This was no spontaneous episode that had to be contained — Harry didn’t wake up one fine morning and go to Afghanistan on his own, he was sent there — and as such there was no ethical compulsion on the media to agree to an embargo. It agreed because it managed a backroom barter: here is our silence, now you give us Harry in soundbites and videoclips.

As a journalist fairly familiar with military actions, I understand that agreements at the tactical level form the heart of many war reports. I will even say all reports involve some kind of a ‘deal’ — no source talks to you for the pure love of talking, there is always a quid pro quo.

While I am reasonably comfortable with that at a personal level, I am not so with a strategic deal of this sort. It was not as if there was a national peril looming and the media had to close flanks and rush to uphold its responsibility to the society. Even if that was the case, I am not sure that is the best strategy, but that is another argument.

So the media did what it did for a ‘better’ story. I am sure the decision was debated, even “agonized” over, but the point is it went through — and something tells me the editors were thinking more of circulation and audience figures and page views than quality journalism.

All in all, it reminds me a bit of the arms deals you see in movies.

The kind in which regimes buy guns, receive kickbacks — and the public carries on oblivious.

Mr Chomsky, you were right

The public carried on oblivious. That is my second point.

Public opinion is crucial in a democratic society, we all know. We also know the media’s fundamental responsibility is to provide for a public sphere, an arena where citizens can exchange thoughts and ideas and question political will.

By agreeing to a blackout, the British media did exactly the opposite. Not only did it not provide for an informed public sphere, it did not provide for any public sphere.

Worse, it strangled the life out of one. That is first-degree murder.

Result? No debate on a decision of political significance (let me point you to Simon Jenkin’s arguments for why this is significant). Some 15 MoD officials, the media, and the prince’s family and close friends knew of it — and they, I am sure you will agree, do not constitute the general public.

I guess Mr Chomsky was right.

Plugs and princely servings

More alarming is what happened after Matt Drudge did his bit.

Even as the media patted itself on the back for the ‘restraint’ it showed with one hand, with the other it dished out princely servings of Harry topped with every sinful dressing in the spin world.

There was Harry firing a machine gun, Harry on a motorbike; Harry shirtless, Harry tucking into jam and biscuits; Harry playing rugby, Harry ‘patrolling’ on foot; Harry talking of mom, Harry rejecting the ‘hero’ label…

As ‘anti-establishment’ British Parliamentarian George Galloway put it, the media gave him to us “as the pin-up of the armed forces, one of the lads, full of derring-do, a British hero on Afghanistan’s plains straight out of Tennyson or Kipling”.

This is all too slick for my sceptical mind. I can’t believe the boy prone to publicity bloopers till the other day is suddenly doing and saying such pat things all on his own.

I certainly can’t believe the mainstream journalists were taken in by this ‘transformation’ either.

The sheer volume, the all-positive spin, the slickness of it, all points to media management and compliance. Not just on what to cover when, but on how to as well. God help us if this was the “deeper insight into a new side of Prince Harry” that Society of Editors chief Bob Satchell promised us.

The long and short of it is that publicists have managed to turn Harry into a hero overnight. And the media, the mediator of the public, its watchdog, processed — nay, happily assisted — it with no questions asked.

Perhaps Harry is the stuff heroes are made of. Perhaps he isn’t. As of now we have no evidence, bar the words of sources — and the media — recorded in a prearranged PR exercise.

They used to have a word for such reportage in old-fashioned journalism: plug.

The cost of compliance

In postscript, a few questions…

If you are not part of a deal, can you really “blow” it? The “understanding” on the Harry story was between the MoD and British editors. In other words, the “foreign press” — read New Idea, Bild and Drudge Report – were not under embargo. So were they “irresponsible”? Or were they doing their duty to their readers, who, not incidentally, are not British?

Given the extent to which the British army went to ensure Harry’s security (they spent nearly half a year just negotiating media silence), how credible is the claim Harry ran “the same risks as everyone else in his battle group”?

From what I read on discussion boards, the majority of British public appears happy with the blackout. Could this be because the British media supported it and hence took pains to persuade the public to see its way?

If the public is happy with one blackout, will it embolden the media to go for more of such in future?

All in all, was the exercise worth the price of media compliance? Did it achieve something in the larger scheme of things?

I see one positive. This debate.

See also: Whose prince? Whose war?

Home

Discussion forums and online polls mostly say the media was right to agree to the embargo. There is also anger against the American Drudge Report and the Australian New Idea.

The Daily Mail, Sun, and News of the World posted online polls on the topic, while the BBC ran a message board with the question: ‘Should the British media have agreed to a black-out of the news that Prince Harry was serving in Afghanistan?’

Ninety-one per cent of those polled on the Daily Mail felt the media was right to keep Harry’s secret. So did 90 per cent on the Sun.

On the News of the World, there was 90 per cent support.

On Guardian Online, while many criticised Harry for going to war, roughly 80 per cent were happy with the media blackout.

The BBC’s message board received more than 270 responses, of which an estimated 80 per cent were supportive of the media. Also debated was the question whether Harry is a hero or a liability to international relations.

“To talk about the media,” reads a response, “is missing the main question of what on earth a member of the royal family is doing out there in the first place?”

Mirror readers debated the justification for British troops in Afghanistan. One reader wrote, “No one should get killed over another’s beliefs.”

The legitimacy of war was debated on the Independent‘s not-so-vibrant discussion board as well.

The Times attracted 219 comments, mostly angry at the Drudge Report, praising Harry and also critical of the media attention to royals.

“[This is] a wake up call to newspaper editors that nobody cares…” said one. “I certainly didn’t notice that for 10 weeks I haven’t seen an article or a picture on Harry falling out of Boujis.”

Most people showed no tolerance for anti-embargo stands. Channel 4 presenter Jon Snow, who thanked God for Matt Drudge, came under fire. “Jon Snow in one absolutely idiotic, thoughtless, stupid statement has just lost C4News one viewer,” said a response.

A minority, however, supported Snow. “I think in fact he was making a valuable point missed elsewhere,” wrote one from this camp. “[I]n a democratic society accommodations made by the media (even if it is to protect a Prince) are the start of a very dangerous and slippery road to
censorship.”

More expressive were the comments about the Drudge Report. “This website should be closed down NOW!!” wrote a Sun reader. “One small minded, idiot of a journalist has now put the lives of UK forces in danger. If anyone dies out there now, he/she should be tried for murder.”

A marginal section felt the embargo breach was a PR stunt to arrest the decreasing public support for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jameela Oberman is a writer at Interjunction.

Home