Prince Harry’s WHERE???
by Paul Giacobbe
Anyone who’s read this blog/column in the past (and I’m sure there’s at least one or two of you out there) knows that I frequently remind viewers of the parameters of my responsibilities: Responding to viewer complaints about fairness, accuracy and balance in the NBC10 news programs. Recently I received an email from Donald W. France Jr. of Warren, who wrote:
I read with interest the Internet news reports discussing Prince Harry. These articles state that CNN, NBC and the other major news outlets choose to willingly deceive the viewing public about Prince Harry’s deployment to Afghanistan.
Prince Harry chose to be a soldier. Soldiers sometimes go to war. Sadly, soldiers are sometimes killed. The point remains Prince Harry chose to be a soldier.
One can only wonder…..if “The Team you Trust” and its network were willing to lie about this matter, what else are they deceiving the viewing public about each and every day. It makes one wonder if all those conspiracy theories about the news media being under the control of the military-industrial complex is not based in some fact.
The Prince Harry story seems somewhat afield from the “fairness, accuracy and balance” criteria as it applies to NBC10’s coverage of local news, but since Mr. France has dragged me into this . . .
The decision not to report the details of Prince Harry’s military deployment has been attributed almost exclusively to the British press and, although I have not specifically inquired, I think I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the question of whether to rat out Prince Harry never came up in any NBC10 internal news department discussions. Nevertheless, while I believe his conclusions overly harsh, Mr. France does raise an interesting issue: Is it ever appropriate for a news organization to withhold information it believes may harm the public interest, or put one or more people in danger?
The answer is that news organizations do it frequently.
Several years ago robbers briefly held hostages in a fast food restaurant in New Bedford. They fortuitously did it during a time period encompassed by the early evening news. NBC10 and other TV stations were there and all, to some extent, complied with police wishes that they not broadcast live reports. Police said they were concerned that the men inside the restaurant might view the reports and see details of police deployment outside the restaurant, or be somehow influenced by seeing themselves, and their situation, on television.
Sometimes public safety officials ask media outlets not to broadcast breaking news about a fire or other disaster, so that gawkers don’t show up and impede rescue efforts.
The withholding by news organizations of details of an event until after it has happened is not a lie, as Mr. France suggests, and is not significantly different than the decision to withhold the details of Prince Harry’s deployment until after his return. There are numerous examples of news organizations, during wartime, withholding details of troop movements and deployments. Reporters embedded with military units during the Gulf Wars did not disclose the locations of the units (and when Geraldo Rivera gave a hint of his unit’s location he was soundly chastised.)
Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, in Britain, recently explained the decision by the British press not to disclose that the prince was in a war zone.
“Editors accepted a purely voluntary understanding with the Ministry of Defence that specifically stated that 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.“
Once he returned, Satchwell wrote, the details of his deployment would be reported without interference from the military.
Many editors voiced concerns about this agreement, Satchwell wrote, “anxious that it might dilute their future credibility with the public. . . . The consensus was that . . . it would be wrong to put him and his soldier colleagues at extra risk by publicising his deployment in advance.“
The decision to withhold such information is, of course, frequently difficult and almost never without some trepidation. Some decisions, however, are easier than others. All things considered, I suspect this was one of the easy ones.
NBC10 provides the space for these comments, but the opinions are mine alone.—Paul Giacobbe
