Remember the controversy several months ago surrounding the possibility of Prince Harry going to Iraq and the associated security threat posed by the media? Well, the situation revisited us last Thursday when the Drudge Report broke the news that Prince Harry had been serving in Afghanistan for 3 months.
Interestingly, networks, such as CNN, have made it clear that they purposely did not break the story for the security of both Prince Harry and his regiment. This was a commendable decision, in my opinion. However, my question is why go ahead and confirm the story now? Perhaps I'm missing a crucial piece of the behind-the-scenes inner-workings of the news world; but why couldn't the networks have simply ignored the Drudge Report and not corroborated the assertions of the blog? Could they not have just left Matt out to dry? Instead, they seemed to say, "Well it's out there, now. Might as well break it too... but let's make sure people know we weren't in the dark, we chose not to break the story because we're responsible".
Regardless of previous ethical responsibility, the top story of the major news networks' (complete with video footage) resulted in the premature withdrawal of Prince Harry from duty. While his family was certainly relieved, Prince Harry was "frustrated" at the unexpected removal.
On the other hand, Jon Snow, a news broadcaster in London, was extremely frustrated with the decision of the media to withhold the information for so long. He was thankful for the Drudge Report leak saying that he wondered whether the public would be able to trust the media again.
It all comes down to this: at what point is breaking the story first, or simply not being last, more important than the safety and security of military missions and individuals? In this case, I believe we have our answer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment