“I believe in equality for everyone – except reporters and photographers.” Guess who said that. Shaw? Schopenhauer? The Millword? Nope. It was Gandhi. Well, what did he know anyway?
Prince Harry has returned from Afghanistan after his presence there was revealed by The Drudge Report, an American website apparently specialising in getting to a story first (it also broke the news of Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinski). This may seem inevitable now, but when you think about it, did you know for certain he was there? Not many people did.
Except, of course, for journalists, which is where Gandhi’s comment comes in (uh, kinda). In order for everyone to be equal in knowledge, it is necessary for one group of people to relay information – to be more equal than the rest. And so, when it comes to the public interest, journalists are close to royalty (so to speak), which is why the Ministry of Defence arranged an agreement with the British media’s most senior editors that the news of Harry’s deployment would not be released to the public.
Not that to honour journalists’ noble calling was the reason for the news blackout – nor, God forbid, respect. It was done out of knowledge of their power; that journalists would find out, and having been left out of the loop like little children, that they would react like little children – and Tell.
So, dear readers, they bribed them with chocolate-covered promises of special access to the Prince, on the proviso it was reported only when he returned. The editors agreed not to tell the public of the Prince’s placement in Afghanistan.
Can you believe it? This behind-doors bartering? This misleading of the public? This corruption of free speech? How absolutely bloody…sensible.
Disclaimer time. I am a fierce hater of censorship and staunch advocate of free word (I believe it’s something like “gair rhydd” in Welsh). Everyone chucks around Voltaire (“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (though I like the amusing change in meaning brought about by a “your”/”you’re” mistake)), but pseudo-pseud that I am, I prefer the words of Albert Camus: “Free press can, of course, be good or bad, but most certainly without freedom, the press will never be anything but bad.” In short, I like free speech a lot.
But while free speech is an inalienable right to people and press alike, there are times when it’s a good idea not to exercise it. As Gandhi also said (or was it Uncle Ben?), “With great power comes great responsibility.” Stories involving details of military movements require discretion. That’s why a British Second World War slogan was ‘Careless talk costs lives’, not ‘Careless talk costs lives but ultimately represents a staple of freedom so it’s OK’. That just doesn’t fit on a poster.
I disagree with people saying the news blackout over Prince Harry’s stationing in Afghanistan was wrong, or even, to quote an article in close proximity to this one, “ludicrous and scary” (though said article is actually very, very good). To me, it seems entirely necessary. Harry’s stationing there, perhaps not – but arguably because it gives them less of a chance to get on a self-righteous professional soapbox, that’s not the issue many people in the media seem to want to discuss.
The fact is that Prince Harry was being sent to Afghanistan, and even the highest of high-ranking journalists couldn’t stop that from happening. The Drudge Report has managed it now all right, but the only way senior journalists could have stopped Harry going altogether would have been to refuse the proposition of a blackout – as suggested by Marina Hyde of The Guardian, somewhat wise after the event. And call me cynical but had the papers done this and splashed Harry across their front pages, I’m not convinced it would have been for moral rather than commercial reasons. The Society of Editors’ Bob Satchwell wrote in The Guardian that the increased access would give the public “a deeper insight into a new side of Prince Harry”. Noble motives.
Not to report Harry’s movements was the right decision; the only decision, in fact. The Editors Did Good. To risk the lives of soldiers in a fit of moral self-indulgence – or just for prestige of having the story, as The Drudge Report almost certainly did – would have been stupid and dangerous. People should stop being so indignant about not being told. So many have complained they’ve been led up The Guardian path, but these people are guilty of blithe naiveté as well as appalling punnery. It was for the safety of troops – they must realise that. Their rights have not been violated. Free speech still exists. You just have to be responsible with it.
After all, if Neighbours (and Home & Away, apparently) has taught us anything about journalism recently, it’s that it requires responsibility. Look at Elle and Belle with their constant retractions because they printed some unresearched story. Actually, what Neighbours has really taught us is that journalism is, apparently, incredibly easy to get into. One new character (Riley) dropped out of university months before his finals, only to later recognise his true calling as a hack. Despite his lack of degree, his lack of commitment to a degree, and the fact it would have been a degree in veterinary science, he’s now writing front-page stories for The Erinsborough News every day. I bet that pisses off any of you slogging your guts out for a 2.1 and relevant work experience. It certainly gets me Riled (boom boom).
And even student journalists have a responsibility to be impartial. Yes, Varsity, I’m talking to you. You may be independent of Cambridge University, but that’s no excuse to print blatant propaganda in the build-up to student elections.
Unlike gair rhydd, which is constitutionally neutral, Varsity chooses to celebrate its ‘freedom’ by flagrantly flaunting the laws of impartial journalism. I only wish I was reading too much into something. But it’s hard to misread an editorial entitled ‘VOTE FLETCHER’.
Varsity is, of course, entitled to print whatever the hell it likes. But tainting an election with massive media bias towards a candidate, however brilliant, doesn’t just undermine journalism; it undermines student democracy too.
Free speech is a valuable right. It’s a shame to see it abused by people who think it excuses bad journalism and dangerous revelations. Because here are some free words for you: it doesn’t.
