Friday, February 29, 2008
|
|
Harry's Secret Raises Questions About New Media
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
1:26 PM
|
Aside from demonstrating his character and bravery, the Prince Harry story raises some interesting thoughts and questions about the blogosphere and new media. As you have probably read, the Drude Report essentially made it a world-wide story:
British officials had hoped to keep Prince Harry's deployment secret until he had safely returned, but they released video of him serving in Helmand province after the leak. The Australian women's magazine New Idea reported on Harry's deployment in January. The news appeared Wednesday in the U.S. Web site the Drudge Report, and media around the world subsequently reported it In most ways, the rise of the now ubiquitous "new media" has been a positive development. For example, it has allowed more diversity of ideas, depriving the three big networks and major newspapers of their long-held monopoly.
But the fact that everyone now essentially owns their own printing press and microphone, also makes it much more difficult to keep anything secret. This is often a good thing, but on a rare occasion, there is information that ought to be kept secret due to legitimate national security or public safety concerns. This could be an inchoate military invasion (think D-Day being leaked by a soldier/blogger), or information about a suspect that the police want to keep quiet, before making an arrest. It's one thing for a president to ask a hand-full of networks to keep a story quiet, but how does he ask a million bloggers to do so?
It's not hard to imagine this having gone badly. For example, let's suppose that Prince Harry had randomly been killed yesterday in Afghanistan, in the maelstrom of war. Were this to have happened, some would today be comparing the temerity of the new media to the paparazzi who were involved in the death of Harry's mother ...
This entire event, of course, raises interesting questions, such as: do bloggers have an ethical responsibility to the public to not report on some things? I don't have an answer to that question, but I think it's an interesting debate to have.
Update: This is so thought-provoking that I continue to ponder these questions, myself. I must say there are definitely things that I have not written about, because my writing about it would have done more harm than good. But the problem with having so many blogs and bloggers is that, in the case of a big story that multiple bloggers will know about, you can't count on all of them being ethical. This, of course, creates a situation where bloggers can essentially "cop out" by saying, "If I don't report it, someone else will..."
|
|
|
This is a perfect example of the public not needing to know EVERYTHING. Drudge put a target on this man's head and derailed his military career. Way to go A-Hole. For Christ's sake, even CNN knew about this and kept their mouths shut. |
|
"do bloggers have an ethical responsibility to the public to not report on some things? I don't have an answer to that question, but I think it's an interesting debate to have." Matt
Matt, the problem is that you under 40's refuse to provide any social CONSEQUENCE for behaving BADLY!
Everthing is left to the Justice system to be handled in LAWSUITS adjudicated for the most part by LIBERALS!
You are INCAPABLE OF VALUE JUDGEMENTS! You don't want to use HARSH words. You hesitate to call others 'bad', 'irresponsible', 'liar', 'traitor' or anything else that IMPLIES JUDGEMENT!
I fear for the world. No one is willing to call the bad guys OUT! |
|
Drudge has lowered himself to the level of the New York Times....and yes, that is intended to be an insult.
There was a time when media respected the necessity of keeping a lid on certain information for the sake of security. The public's so-called need to know does not outweigh the need for their security, and the press argument that they are the "public watchdog" is ludicrous in light of their obvious agenda.
Drudge is wrong on this one, he accomplished nothing positive, and he needs to learn a lesson from it.
...but Harry rocks! |
|
|
Everyone has the ethical responsibility to use common sense. I'm glad he wanted to serve and I'm glad he's okay. Shame on whoever it was. |
|
Matt Lewis wrote;
------------------
"This is so thought-provoking that I continue to ponder these questions, myself."
------------------
Wow.
Even YOU, Matthew ?
That's bold of you to admit, publicly.
|
|
|
Gawd, is there nothing that stands in front of getting a headline? Ethical behavior and common sense trumped by "I got the story." Really out of line - Shame of the dolt that did it! |
|
|
It was my understanding that his tour was completed. I don't think Drudge would go off half-cocked without vetting the story first, unlike the NYT. I could be wrong, but I have to believe that Drudge isn't the sensationalist you guys want to believe he is. |
|
Incorrect sir...er....ma'am? Sorry...
Anyway, Harry, as I understand it, was three months into a four month deployment. As a result of this story being published, he has been pulled out of Afghanistan earlier than scheduled. |
|
And tell me again why the Bush girls couldn't have served in their Daddy's war? Were they too busy throwing up in the streets of Argentina?
Of course, NONE of the Bush kids ever serve their country in uniform:
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/05/08/edi05061.html
|
|
|
Drudge is not keeping Prince Harry(or William) out of Afghanistan. The British and American actors who left thriving careers to fight in WWII did not stay out of the war because the enemy knew they made up our fighting force. Unless Harry is wearing a pink tutu and flashing neon lights, he is not distinguishable from any other soldier and thus has NO excuse for leaving his squad (early or otherwise). |
|
|
I am sooooo tired of hearing (or reading) comments about the "Bush girls" not being in the military. It is just so stupid. It would make sense if we had a draft that included women, but we don't. We have a volunteer military force. They are not getting any special breaks!!! |
|
Yep....plenty of celebrities in Afghanistan about now....
The British government has withdrawn Prince Harry so he is not at risk, and ALSO those who served alongside him. Since they were named in the story as well, they would become more disirable targets. If Drudge hadn't exposed the whole thing, he could have finished his deployment and we wouldn't even be talking about it.....
Goat....Bush girls....!?! Sheesh! Stick to debating deviate sexual behavior....! |
|
If you recall, the reason we became The United States of America is because we rejected the notion of royalty via a specific bloodline.
Granted, for one of the Great Britain royal freeloaders to actually want to serve in the military is admirable. As far as I can tell, however, the enemies intent is to kill any of our allies, regardless of how royal they think they are.
If anything, Harry should be thanking the Drudge for allowing him to go back to the comforts of a mansion, jewels, fine clothing and dining payed for off of the backs of the working people of Great Britain.
At least Harry can pretend he is the great warrior his ancestors were and perhaps justify in the pea-sized minds of those British, that blindly shelling out their hard earned Euro's to maintain an extravagant lifestyle for their precious royal freeloaders, is still necessary. |
|
Some on here seem bitter toward Harry personally. I have to ask...why? He cannot help the station into which he was born. The Brits seem to want to keep their royal family, and that is their right. I agree with Mr. o'furniture....Harry rocks!
The comment about the Bush girls is inane and, thankfully, never gains any traction. We have a volunteer military, and they know what they are getting into when they sign up. I know the libs would have you believe these are poor, dumb hicks who didn't quite get it, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I think Matt has asked some good questions, and he did it because he wants US to think about this, and not try to be some "sage on the stage."
We also need to ask ourselves if we are a little self-indulgent. How many times do you hear people say things like...."I have a right to know," when there is no earthly reason that they should know or need to know? |
|
other than Harry would think it was anydamnbusiness of anydamnbody else where he was and what he was doing is beyond me. Drudge was an ASZhole, the original publication was an AH, everybody who had ANYTHING to do with leaking it was an AH, and everybody who READ the damn thing was a AH. And everybody should let every ONE of em know as brutally as possible, that they WERE aszholes!
Kickin Drudge's rhetorical asz on every OTHER blog might help. Throwin rocks at his head whenever he comes within range might do it too.
Think on this one. Since we have evolved a Society that has no means of making unpleasant behavior unpleasant for the practitioners other than Law Suit--which has gotten nearly as bad as in Dicken's day when the went on for GENERATIONS!---Since it is that bad, perhaps it is time to return to a more direct "redress of grievances" practiced say, by the Sons of Liberty and The Green Mountain Boys.
Drudge being an aszhole? A suitable group of his fellow citizens might exercise their right to peaceably assemble outside his house, and then proceed to redress their grievance with him by tar and feathering his aszhole asz and running him out of town on a rail.
Behavioralists have known for half a century that discipline, to be effective in curbing unacceptable behavior, HAS to be immediate and massive. Rage is a fine thing, in its place, and I suggest we use more of it as a corrective measure for aszholes.
The big mick
|
|
The millions of bloggers mentioned have one thing in common--a computer, which has to be SOMEPLACE physically located on (mostly) the planet. The NY Times being an aszhole? What message would they get if their building burned down? Some Network likewise--what happens when their studios get wrecked?
Folks you have either directly produced this Society which is totally indifferent to your grievances or you have allowed it to be produced.
The fact people can BE aszholes and get away with it is YOUR fault! The fact you have no means of correcting that is YOUR fault.
When you are REALLY ready to DO something about that by accepting responsibility for directly bringing correction for unacceptable behavior DOWN on the heads of those who practice it, things will change. If you are not willilng, they will not. You either form the Posse hunt down and hang the horsethieves yourself, or they will continue to steal from you. Your choice.
You guys got what you built.
The big mick
|
|
The equation is quite simple. What you have now is multiple generations, a whole society that is INCAPABLE of asking the question: "If I do this whom will it hurt?"
Since that question CANNOT be asked, then there is only one alternative Question: "If I do this will it hurt ME?" If the answer to THAT questions is NOT "You damn betcha it'll HURT you BAD!" what do you think is going to happen?
Show me where that YES-BAD! answer comes from in our Society. We've got the highest ratio of people in prison to general population in HISTORY and MOST crimes still go unINVESTIGATED much less unsolved or unpunished.
Show me the checks and balances--ain't there folks. So what are YOU going to do about it?
the big mick |
|
top o' the marnin' t'ya.
I agree...to oxymorons like military intelligence, patriotic liberal and happily married, you can add "journalistic ethics." |
|
When you ask the question whether it is ethical for a blogger to report a story, you should ask the major media moguls as well. Bob Bennet, the attorney representing John McCain regarding printed allegations in the New York Times made an interesting comment. The New York times would rather risk being wrong than being scooped. This is the major problem in news reporting today.
It does not matter if you are wrong as long as you are first. This is the legacy of Watergate.
If the Bush girls did serve in combat the way that many seem to want, would you be willing to put your son or daughter alongside them knowing that the daughters of a sitting president are a high profile target ? Would you want this knowing that the enemy will take increased effort to kill or better still, capture the daughter of the sitting president? Substitute son of president for daughter if you wish.
The normal response of many would be to change the subject and say we should not be in Iraq in the first place. That does not answer the question.
Commanders have a responsibility to the entire unit not just one person. In WWII it was easier for a celebrity to blend with military units than it is today.
Tibby |
|
Look Diana was always in the public eye because she wanted to be.
Harry wants to serve his country in war. He doesn't like being called a hero.
The fact that our countries have allowed private journalist into combat zones is the cause of this. Having a soldier in the field comunicating tactical issues to the outside public is also a danger.
Restricting the press in America is not the answer. Restricting speech in the field of war is.
But there are those of us to stupid to understand the nature of war. D-day was not exposed to the enemy because we restricted those type communications. |
|
|
...is to "embed" Matt Drudge with a forward-deployed Brit unit in Afghanistan. I'd bet it wouldn't be long before Drudge was just a smudge in the desert. |
|
I dont know why this is coming off as a Drudge story. 2 other news outlets broke the news FIRST and Drudge then picked up on it. Once the news was out he ran the stroy but he is NOT the person who broke it.
Now on the issue of Freedom of the press. They should have the right to say whatever they wish but if they slander or libel a person or organization then they should be sued. We need things in place to keep the news accurate and to hold these people accountable better. Otherwise we end up with bogus stories about Bush and the national guard or Cain cheating on his wife.
The biggest issue with the media the fact that they have a leftward tilt and pick and choose the stories that fit their political points of view and perspective on life. We have Obama and Cain in 2008 to choose from and BOTH are 110% media driven. We are allowing the media too much influence, power, and sway in the fate of our lives and now the very future of our Republic. |
|
|
....Drudge did Harry a favor.Reports now (Fox News)say the taliban knew since December he was in-country and were trying to hunt him down. |
|
Still asking the same stupid questions I see. The "Bush girls" are adults. They have the right to make their own call on things like serving in the military (something most women choose not to do) And even if they did join, we have a no women in combat policy, so they would find themselves doing tactical support or administration of some kind.
Your point seem's to be that Bush is a hypocrite, since his daughters have not joined the army and demanded to be placed in front line service. Or should their father shackle them and drop them from a transport plane into a hot combat zone?
There are plenty of things to complain about with regards to the president. Why not choose something more intelligent and drop this stupid rant you have had going for so long. It makes you look childish and bitter. |
|
|
|