« The Enemy Within, Without, and Everywhere..... | Main | Legalism run riot? »
May 05, 2004
Public Interest reporting?
When is a newspaper (or a TV Station, Radio Station or any other public information medium) acting in the interests of the public in reporting something, and when is it not? This is a very tricky and possibly explosive question.
Undoubtedly the torture, killing, or mutilation of prisoners is not acceptable. We even put the leaders of Nazi Germany on trial for it in 1945 - 48. But, does a newspaper serve the public interest by publishing, in graphic detail, stories and photographs of such allegations serve the public interest, or merely gratify their need to promote their paper? Is inflaming already strained relations and fanning the flames of an already dangerous situation justified by pointing to the papers anti-war credentials and anti-military stance? I do not think so. The proper course of action in my view would have been to bring these photographs and allegations to the attention of the appropriate legal agencies and let them deal with it as quickly and efficiently as possible - without inflaming the already overheated passions both in the Middle East and at home.
I think the editorial decision of the Daily Mirror to "publish and be damned" is short sighted, stupidly narrow minded, and likely to bring down upon our servicemen an entirely undeserved response. It is always unacceptable when even a small group of renegades acts illegally or unacceptably, yet it should not be seen as a reflection on all the troops. Our forces are the best in the world, yet there is a small group in this country who are, to put it mildly, utterly unable to fight their way out of a wet paper sack, completely devoid of any appreciation of what it is like to be stood in the firing line and taking flak from an often invisible enemy who doesn't hesitate to hide behind children and women, but have have all the answers to everything on the battlefield itself. I would dearly like to see the whole damned lot of them put into uniform and sent out to go and take their chances on the battlefield.
Unfortunately, they wouldn't last 10 seconds and worse, they would endanger the lads who do this professionally so that the media warriors can hide behind their desktop publishing systems and exercise the freedoms our troops defend - in spite of their constant carping denigration. I am pretty sure that I am not the only person who finds it totally disgusting that TV crews regularly film murders being committed (the deaths of the American aid workers in Iraq filmed by a TV crew is merely the latest in a long chain of such events) and then argue that they acted "in the public interest" to show the world what was happening.
Several times in my former career I had occasion to be present when the TV crews arrived at scenes which were tense, but calm. As soon as the camera was set up, all hell busted loose! Why! What's the point of having a riot in protest at your oppression if no one else can see it! My fellow officers and I developed the habit of calling for support as soon as we saw the BBC, ABC, CNN or any other "media" car drawing up at an incident. It was a given that there would be a riot as soon as they got their equipment set up.
The Mirror has highlighted a problem. It is to be hoped that the Army deals with it swiftly and effectively, and I have every confidence that they will. The damage the Mirror has done to the fragile relations in the Middle East will be entirely another matter. They will undoubtedly hide behind the argument that THEY merely reported the unacceptable actions of a small group. I, for one, do not accept that because, in the longer term, they will have been responsible for the suicide attack on the tube, or the nail bomb in a bus station, or even the next car bomb in a city centre. It will be their "public interest" publication which will inspire the next moron who thinks he can bomb his way into heaven for the cause of his twisted view of Islam.
Something we all seem to have lost sight of here is that "Freedom of the Press" presumes that they will act responsibly and wisely at all times. Unfortunately the Daily Mirror has not been guided by that concept for far too long. We would probably do very well to remember that these same editors and reporters would be quick to bemoan their plight if the position were reversed and we were now living under the heel of someone like Saddam and his henchmen. There would be precious little "public interest" reporting then!
Mind you, what does one call a newspaper that highlights key words in the text so those who read it can scan the highlights without having to move a finger along the page while they mouth the words. Responsible? No!
Posted by The Gray Monk at May 5, 2004 12:57 PM
Comments
I forgot which news editor said this but it sums up where the media is coming from.
"If it bleeds, it leads"
I think that applys to anything that makes the military look like idiots also.
Posted by: Matthew at May 6, 2004 04:49 AM
Round up everyone with a "Press" pass, put them in uniform and let's see how well they get on ...
Posted by: The Gray Monk at May 6, 2004 01:29 PM
Carefully one walks who tauts the kings. Treason is but a word, but its utterance might prove the undoing of us all.
I'm guessing that means be careful what you say in these strange times. Never know who might decide what you've said borders on treason.
Posted by: IXLNXS at May 11, 2004 04:13 AM