Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics The Media Media ethics v. responsiblity

Yesterday the story broke that Prince Harry had been serving in Afghanistan for the past 10 weeks. The British press agreed to a news blackout to protect Harry and his fellow soldiers. Harry was able for the first time in his young life; be a normal person doing something he had longed to do.

With the story now being reported he is forced to leave Afghanistan without completing his tour.

Story Here

Should the story have been reported? when does ethics trump the responsibility of the media to report the news?

Personally given this story has no major implications on anyone's life it should have not been reported. There is one difference between the UK and US reporting and that is the UK even with their thirst for the salicious still retain some modicum of ethical responsibility. They won't show the face of young children of those they write stories about, we do. They understood the implications of Harry's risk and that of his fellow soldiers and respected the request to not report on his being in Afghanistan, we didn't.

Do we need to know everything? when is it a story that should be reported v. a story that could wait to be reported?

Thoughts

I think I saw that the story was broken by the Drudge Report.

I'm not at all certain why Drudge considered it news that needed to be reported. I'm not sure any public interest was served in the report.

But then I find the Royals a huge yawn to begin with.

It sounds more like a PR move on the part of Drudge (if that's who "broke" the story - makes me wonder if it was a particularly slow news day. I can't really see any reason this qualifies as news.

To mention Drudge and ethics within a hundred miles of each other is laughable.

Breaking the Prince Harry story is, IMHO, bordering criminal. As recent history has been plainly made clear to us all, the news exposure of Prince Harry possibly going to Iraq spurred verbal threats from enemy groups who talked about placing a rather high bounty on him. It also placed all who was in his presence in a much higher degree of danger.

This is another example of why so-called hard-news media outlets gets slammed with accusations of turning into cheap-shot tabloids.

I happen to catch a comment from a Jon Snow, British journalist, who made the comment something like, "Thank God for Drudge who was able to break one of the best keep secrets of modern time." Does the guy have zero respect for human life? It's one thing to harrass celebrities by constantly following them around keeping a close monitor on every breathe that they take, but Prince Harry's life will now probably be in harms way no matter where he goes hince forth because of the Drudge story headline "Royal in Afganistan Kills 30 Taliban".

I can imagine what headlines and the public response would be like if a radical terrorist member of the Taliban attempts or successfully assinates Prince Harry after he returns home and is just trying to live as normal life as possible. What a trophy kill he'd make now. The income media would made off either an attempt or assination would be an extrordinary amount of money. Britney Spears made $150 million for media just in 2007.

The once taught ethics in J-School, I don't know if they still do or not. Probably not.

Matt Drudge is not a professional journalist. He's not even a decent gossip columnist.

The Internet is the new emerging information medium, news medium. But it is obvious this new medium is still in its infancy. It is still growing. Standards are still being defined. Any slag can throw up a site and call him or herself a "news source" as Drudge has done. Drudge's method of reporting is the throw enough sh*t on the wall some of it will stick" method. At some point ethics will determine what is reported and/or what is read. I believe that the market will one day force the change. In fact, I'd rather it come from the market than come from governmental regulation. The Internet must remain free from censorship and that is already starting to slip.

You will get no argument with me regarding Drudge and I apologize if I however unintentially;referred to Drudge as "media" or in anyway gave the impression I found him to be legitimate.

My questions were more in regards to the actual news sources who followed suit after Drudge reported the story. I mean how many people actually read Drudge? Nevermind, probably too many.

I wanted to use this story as an example of how ethics seems to have disappeared from our journalistic endevours (not all). As Austin pointed out, after this story Prince Harry's life is in great danger even with him being back home. As will be anyone who is within a certain amount of distance from him. Even if a slug like Drudge decided to run the story did MSN have to follow? along with all the other major outlets?

I'm a firm believer in first amendment rights and a publics right to know. However in this case there was no impact on the public so why did we have to know? Harry isn't running for office, he isn't a chosen celebrity, he was just doing his job and now his life has been put in peril because the media knows this story will sell.

SM- I concur with you regarding the internet. I guess what we have really lost is a ingrained ethic within ourselves and our society.

i was wondering if all the pontiffs here could illuminate us on what they believe journalistic ethics would entail. i see a lot of talk about these ethics, yet no examples.

I apologize 2wins if this hits a sore spot but it wasn't intended to offend but was intended to be a discussion to where one would draw the line between journalistic ethics and the obligation to report. If there is another word that would suffice please by all means provide it. However don't try to shore up your argument with an insult given the intent wasn't there on the other end.


Actually I did give an example; The UK doesn't print the faces of young children of those they cover, the US does. The UK press respected the request to blackout this story, the US didn't. IMO it is a matter of ethics to say stick a camera in a young childs face and plaster that image all over the world. That could put that childs life in danger because of it. If this isn't a matter of ethics what would you call it? principle? I have no problem changing the discussion to use the word principle?

Wikipedia


Society of Professional Journalists

phil, that's fine, but it doesn't address how the people on this board might define the ethics. red offers something, but many on this board and elsewhere like to use a broadbrush approach to this subject when discussing it. it's not a sore spot, red, but it is amusing to me. you see, none of this is new. this is the same old same old that has been going on for a couple hundred years in this country. with each generation there are new complaints about the press. yet, as i have pointed out before, much of what you discuss here would not be possible without the very press that many revile. it's ironic. does that mean you should not criticize, not at all. but as phil has offered a link to the spj, i would hope that those who commment here would do two things: one, read the comments on ethics, and two please offer up a list what some of you presumed to be ethics in journalism without benefit of a society ethical mission statement. i think it would be interesting to see what you come up with.

as far as the photos of children, red, i suppose it depends upon the context. as far as harry goes, if you're saying drudge was the one to out harry, then frankly you can't say the msm outted him, really. but i would also add that there are far too many brits, journalists and civilians alike, that i have talked with who are tired of the treatment the royals get. if one of our celebs - the royals are just celebs, frankly - went over there you all know damn well it would be covered. make it right? well, probably not. but then again, why don't we just stop writing about all the soldiers, and leave the war to the chickenhawks. oh, wait, that's what the bush administration has been trying to get us to all along.