Who did the media serve by hushing up Harry's war?
Why it was the right thing to do
By Bob Satchwell The voluntary news blackout on Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan was already in effect before he went to war in December last year. Talks started in the summer at the request of the chief of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, to see if the prince could be deployed to a war zone without the huge publicity that surrounded a previous attempt to send him to fight in Iraq. The prince was desperate to join his colleagues in the front line. Army chiefs wanted him to go to war like any other young officer who had been expensively trained for the task. The Society of Editors was asked to help when it was agreed a Defence Advisory Notice would be inappropriate and it was not a matter for the Press Complaints Commission. Editors accepted the understanding that specifically and importantly stated the blackout applied only to his military duties in Afghanistan and not to any of his other hobbies or activities, such as late night socialising. While 400 editors and their senior staff knew Harry was fighting the Taliban, many high-ranking officers, junior government ministers and staff at the prince's home, Clarence House, were not told at first. There would be special access for the media on a pooled basis to the prince before, during and after his deployment, which could be reported when he returned home without any interference by the Royal family or the military. The media is damned if it does, and damned it is doesn't. With one or two notable exceptions among columnists and commentators, there was widespread support for the media embargo both in Britain and abroad. The Society of Editors received only one adverse comment from the public. In the lengthy discussions about the wisdom and ethics of doing the deal many editors voiced their concerns. They were anxious it might dilute their future credibility with the public and some also thought Prince Harry shouldn't go at all because of the risk it posed to his fellow soldiers. The debate about the media's decision is clouded by the valid discussion about whether Prince Harry should have been in the Army at all. The first is an important matter for editors and journalists and how they do their jobs. The second was not central to the news embargo. That was agreed only when it became clear the prince was about to be deployed and editors decided they shouldn't put him or his colleagues at any greater risk than they would already face. All the criticisms and questions raised in the aftermath had been discussed at length with the Ministry of Defence and among editors before the blackout began. The understanding was between editors and the Chief of the General Staff. The general recognised the media risked compromising the trust of audiences. Any material collected by the Press Association (PA) or the broadcasting pool could only be amended if there was a serious issue of operational security. There were no serious issues that led to arguments. Clarence House didn't see the material before the public. The media, and therefore the public, had unfettered and unprecedented access to Prince Harry. Everyone could look at him in a different light - for good or ill. It was an opportunity unlikely to have arisen in any other way. It wasn't a matter of misleading readers, listeners and viewers. Media blackouts aren't that unusual. We don't report kidnaps, at the request of the police, if a hostage's life might be a risk. We often know about the movements of politicians or royalty so coverage can be planned but don't report them until they are safe. The embargo was broken by an American website. Despite much talk of an Australian publication reporting on Prince Harry, there had been no confirmation of its story. As the story flooded out, the sheer volume of video and still pictures and terrific PA copy - organised for the benefit of national, Sunday and regional newspapers - may have led some observers to the conclusion it was some kind of public relations triumph for the Ministry of Defence, the Army and the royal family. But if editors focused on Harry the hero or waxed lyrical about his service in battle, that was a matter for them - and their readers and viewers, of course. Public relations are in the eye of the beholder. The important issue was that editors chose to join the understanding. Any one of them could have broken it at any time. They also had free choice about how to use the story and how to comment on the prince's deployment. That was the answer to the suggestion the understanding could be compared to media censorship in a totalitarian state. It's quite right the debate continues but editors can be satisfied a totally voluntary agreement held for so long. There were those who obtained their own material during the deployment who could have had great exclusives. Instead, putting aside their competitive instincts, they chose not to do so in order to maintain the security of the prince and those working alongside him, and because they had, in effect, shaken hands with their rivals to work and publish together. Having performed in a way that all but a few have applauded, it was of course necessary to get back immediately to reporting great exclusives, annoying and upsetting those who deserve it and, when appropriate, being as outrageous as a free media must be from time to time if it's to continue to serve the public. - Bob Satchwell is the executive director of the UK's Society of Editors. He is a former editor of the Cambridge Evening News, former assistant editor of the News of the World and associate editor of the Lancashire Evening Post.
A disservice to real journalism
By Charlie Beckett The last thing that journalism needs to do right now is to tell the public that it will not tell them the whole truth. Around the world, the news media is under threat from economic pressures, online competition and repressive politicians. It is widely distrusted by the very citizens who should be buying its products and believing in what it says. If it continues to lose the people's faith and their custom then it will shrink in size and significance. The only losers will be the journalists and a society that needs an open and effective press. That is what worries me about the Prince Harry censorship issue. In reality, this was a deal concocted between the British media, the Ministry of Defence, and the Royal household to hide something in return for good copy. Worse than that, it effectively turned the British media into the public relations agency for the war in Afghanistan. Let's get some of the false arguments out of the way first. No one suggests that there are not times when it is better not to publish some stories. If people's lives are at risk or national security is threatened then a civilised society can come to an agreement with its media not to tell. This was not such a case. No one is suggesting that this has to be a precedent either. These cases are decided on their individual merits. I accept that there was a practical argument why some editors had to follow what the majority wanted. What concerns me is the alacrity with which this deal was done and the lack of self-criticism exhibited by those who took it. Harry did not need to go to Afghanistan. His presence was not critical to the success of the military operations there. The noble and brave thing would have been for him to put principle and other's safety before his own personal wishes. And if he does have to fight? Well, he is either a regular soldier or he is not. If he is a risk to his comrades then why send him? The authorities knew that his presence would be leaked at some point. The real surprise is that it took so long. An Australian tabloid website put the information online in January but no one noticed until US blogger Matt Drudge was alerted by another article in the German media. Once the secret emerged, the British media indulged in a binge of self-righteous humbug about how Drudge had let the side down and risked British lives. What tosh. The Ministry of Defence had planned for this eventuality and brought Harry out very smartly. It was clear from the subsequent parade of staged photos and videos and the stream of gushing copy that the British media treated Harry's spell in Afghanistan as a soft-news bonanza. The Ministry of Defence must have been delighted with the largely unquestioning coverage. But putting aside the poor quality of the journalism, my point is that it proves that this was a PR stunt, not a genuine piece of war reporting. Despite the attempt by the media to portray Harry as a worthy successor to Shakespeare's Henry V, it looked very much as if Harry had been nowhere near any real action. But what if it had been real? What if he had been part of an action that had caused the deaths of Afghan civilians? What if he had been responsible for the unnecessary loss of British lives? The British media's complicity in this PR jaunt would have looked rather less convenient then. We are told that if Harry's trip had turned into 'real' news then the self-imposed censorship would have been lifted. That only confirms how fake the whole thing was in the first place. Again, my objection is that the media agreed to the deal before Harry was sent. There have been some who opposed this decision because they are anti-Royalist or opposed to British participation in the Afghan war. Those are valid reasons but they are not mine. Nor do I think that the decision was right just because it was popular. Of course most of the British public supported this blackout. The public is patriotic and royalist. No one wins votes by defending the media or by advocating press freedom. That's why it is so easily lost. The long-term collusion of the British media in this case sends a disastrous signal to both the authorities and the public - even those who agreed with it. Every journalist - and anyone concerned about the role of the media in a democracy - should always be biased in favour of freedom of expression. In this case, we witnessed the journalists and many of those who represent them embracing this deal with alacrity. Their response to those who have had doubts is at best complacent and at worst hostile. Much of the outside world looked at this story and saw the mainstream British media as jingoistic, deferential and shortsighted. No wonder people are turning in increasing numbers to alternatives. The problem for the mainstream media, though, is that if they have to go to a blogger for the truth, then they might just not come back next time. - Charlie Beckett is the director of Polis, an international media and society think-tank at the London School of Economics. You can read his blog at www.charliebeckett.org or go to www.lse.ac.uk/polis for more information.
By Bob Satchwell The voluntary news blackout on Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan was already in effect before he went to war in December last year. Talks started in the summer at the request of the chief of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, to see if the prince could be deployed to a war zone without the huge publicity that surrounded a previous attempt to send him to fight in Iraq. The prince was desperate to join his colleagues in the front line. Army chiefs wanted him to go to war like any other young officer who had been expensively trained for the task. The Society of Editors was asked to help when it was agreed a Defence Advisory Notice would be inappropriate and it was not a matter for the Press Complaints Commission. Editors accepted the understanding that specifically and importantly stated the blackout applied only to his military duties in Afghanistan and not to any of his other hobbies or activities, such as late night socialising. While 400 editors and their senior staff knew Harry was fighting the Taliban, many high-ranking officers, junior government ministers and staff at the prince's home, Clarence House, were not told at first. There would be special access for the media on a pooled basis to the prince before, during and after his deployment, which could be reported when he returned home without any interference by the Royal family or the military. The media is damned if it does, and damned it is doesn't. With one or two notable exceptions among columnists and commentators, there was widespread support for the media embargo both in Britain and abroad. The Society of Editors received only one adverse comment from the public. In the lengthy discussions about the wisdom and ethics of doing the deal many editors voiced their concerns. They were anxious it might dilute their future credibility with the public and some also thought Prince Harry shouldn't go at all because of the risk it posed to his fellow soldiers. The debate about the media's decision is clouded by the valid discussion about whether Prince Harry should have been in the Army at all. The first is an important matter for editors and journalists and how they do their jobs. The second was not central to the news embargo. That was agreed only when it became clear the prince was about to be deployed and editors decided they shouldn't put him or his colleagues at any greater risk than they would already face. All the criticisms and questions raised in the aftermath had been discussed at length with the Ministry of Defence and among editors before the blackout began. The understanding was between editors and the Chief of the General Staff. The general recognised the media risked compromising the trust of audiences. Any material collected by the Press Association (PA) or the broadcasting pool could only be amended if there was a serious issue of operational security. There were no serious issues that led to arguments. Clarence House didn't see the material before the public. The media, and therefore the public, had unfettered and unprecedented access to Prince Harry. Everyone could look at him in a different light - for good or ill. It was an opportunity unlikely to have arisen in any other way. It wasn't a matter of misleading readers, listeners and viewers. Media blackouts aren't that unusual. We don't report kidnaps, at the request of the police, if a hostage's life might be a risk. We often know about the movements of politicians or royalty so coverage can be planned but don't report them until they are safe. The embargo was broken by an American website. Despite much talk of an Australian publication reporting on Prince Harry, there had been no confirmation of its story. As the story flooded out, the sheer volume of video and still pictures and terrific PA copy - organised for the benefit of national, Sunday and regional newspapers - may have led some observers to the conclusion it was some kind of public relations triumph for the Ministry of Defence, the Army and the royal family. But if editors focused on Harry the hero or waxed lyrical about his service in battle, that was a matter for them - and their readers and viewers, of course. Public relations are in the eye of the beholder. The important issue was that editors chose to join the understanding. Any one of them could have broken it at any time. They also had free choice about how to use the story and how to comment on the prince's deployment. That was the answer to the suggestion the understanding could be compared to media censorship in a totalitarian state. It's quite right the debate continues but editors can be satisfied a totally voluntary agreement held for so long. There were those who obtained their own material during the deployment who could have had great exclusives. Instead, putting aside their competitive instincts, they chose not to do so in order to maintain the security of the prince and those working alongside him, and because they had, in effect, shaken hands with their rivals to work and publish together. Having performed in a way that all but a few have applauded, it was of course necessary to get back immediately to reporting great exclusives, annoying and upsetting those who deserve it and, when appropriate, being as outrageous as a free media must be from time to time if it's to continue to serve the public. - Bob Satchwell is the executive director of the UK's Society of Editors. He is a former editor of the Cambridge Evening News, former assistant editor of the News of the World and associate editor of the Lancashire Evening Post.
A disservice to real journalism
By Charlie Beckett The last thing that journalism needs to do right now is to tell the public that it will not tell them the whole truth. Around the world, the news media is under threat from economic pressures, online competition and repressive politicians. It is widely distrusted by the very citizens who should be buying its products and believing in what it says. If it continues to lose the people's faith and their custom then it will shrink in size and significance. The only losers will be the journalists and a society that needs an open and effective press. That is what worries me about the Prince Harry censorship issue. In reality, this was a deal concocted between the British media, the Ministry of Defence, and the Royal household to hide something in return for good copy. Worse than that, it effectively turned the British media into the public relations agency for the war in Afghanistan. Let's get some of the false arguments out of the way first. No one suggests that there are not times when it is better not to publish some stories. If people's lives are at risk or national security is threatened then a civilised society can come to an agreement with its media not to tell. This was not such a case. No one is suggesting that this has to be a precedent either. These cases are decided on their individual merits. I accept that there was a practical argument why some editors had to follow what the majority wanted. What concerns me is the alacrity with which this deal was done and the lack of self-criticism exhibited by those who took it. Harry did not need to go to Afghanistan. His presence was not critical to the success of the military operations there. The noble and brave thing would have been for him to put principle and other's safety before his own personal wishes. And if he does have to fight? Well, he is either a regular soldier or he is not. If he is a risk to his comrades then why send him? The authorities knew that his presence would be leaked at some point. The real surprise is that it took so long. An Australian tabloid website put the information online in January but no one noticed until US blogger Matt Drudge was alerted by another article in the German media. Once the secret emerged, the British media indulged in a binge of self-righteous humbug about how Drudge had let the side down and risked British lives. What tosh. The Ministry of Defence had planned for this eventuality and brought Harry out very smartly. It was clear from the subsequent parade of staged photos and videos and the stream of gushing copy that the British media treated Harry's spell in Afghanistan as a soft-news bonanza. The Ministry of Defence must have been delighted with the largely unquestioning coverage. But putting aside the poor quality of the journalism, my point is that it proves that this was a PR stunt, not a genuine piece of war reporting. Despite the attempt by the media to portray Harry as a worthy successor to Shakespeare's Henry V, it looked very much as if Harry had been nowhere near any real action. But what if it had been real? What if he had been part of an action that had caused the deaths of Afghan civilians? What if he had been responsible for the unnecessary loss of British lives? The British media's complicity in this PR jaunt would have looked rather less convenient then. We are told that if Harry's trip had turned into 'real' news then the self-imposed censorship would have been lifted. That only confirms how fake the whole thing was in the first place. Again, my objection is that the media agreed to the deal before Harry was sent. There have been some who opposed this decision because they are anti-Royalist or opposed to British participation in the Afghan war. Those are valid reasons but they are not mine. Nor do I think that the decision was right just because it was popular. Of course most of the British public supported this blackout. The public is patriotic and royalist. No one wins votes by defending the media or by advocating press freedom. That's why it is so easily lost. The long-term collusion of the British media in this case sends a disastrous signal to both the authorities and the public - even those who agreed with it. Every journalist - and anyone concerned about the role of the media in a democracy - should always be biased in favour of freedom of expression. In this case, we witnessed the journalists and many of those who represent them embracing this deal with alacrity. Their response to those who have had doubts is at best complacent and at worst hostile. Much of the outside world looked at this story and saw the mainstream British media as jingoistic, deferential and shortsighted. No wonder people are turning in increasing numbers to alternatives. The problem for the mainstream media, though, is that if they have to go to a blogger for the truth, then they might just not come back next time. - Charlie Beckett is the director of Polis, an international media and society think-tank at the London School of Economics. You can read his blog at www.charliebeckett.org or go to www.lse.ac.uk/polis for more information.
