Media Coverage Versus Common Sense

Prince Harry, third in line of succession to the British Throne (after father Charles and elder brother William) has apparently been deployed to Afghanistan since December and though people were aware of this fact, it was something that had been kept from the public due to an agreement between the British Ministry of Defense and the press. Unfortunately the news was leaked this week by the Australian media and propogated by German media sources. As a result, Harry, who went through his military training at Sandhurst is due to be withdrawn after serving only ten weeks of a normal six month tour. While people may argue that Harry was out in the field surrounded by bodyguards and the like, I think this incident raises a more important issue and that's just how much freedom the press should be granted.

Now I grant you that Prince Harry is a bit of a wild child. After tussles at numerous parties and incidents of bad judgement (being photographed dressed as a Nazi soldier during a costume party come to mind) he seemed to have settled down quite a bit after entering the military. Like anybody who volunteers for the military, Harry was naturally eager to join his comrades on the front lines when they were deployed. However, when his regiment, the Blues and Royals, was deployed to Iraq last May, Harry was kept back in England due to fears that he would become a prime target for insurgents and assassins. I can recall the major furor that was aroused when people were told that Harry was being denied the right to serve with his regiment in Iraq. Some said it was the right thing to do to keep him behind since it would make those around him likely targets as well while others commended a member of the royal family for wanting to take part in efforts around the world to maintain peace.

The press would have had a field day with the news had he been deployed to Iraq in that they would have been surrounding him like drones to a queen bee. Anyone interested in finding him wouldn't have to look hard, they'd probably just have to look for the mass of reporters shouting "Harry". Now the current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are different; for the first time the media has been involved in the front line operations that were previously kept from the public. Sure they may not have been able to cover every single action in the war but at least they were allowed to 'embed' themselves with troops to show the people what was happening in the war. Rather than allowing rumor to become fact, the hope was that by granting this much coverage to a somewhat lukewarmly supported war, support woudl jump as it did during the first Gulf War. Unfortunately the media is not one to shy away from opportunity.

In an effort to 'one up' their competition or to break news first, every news agency out there is always ready to push the limits in order to gain ratings. As such, they want to be the first to provide 'exclusive coverage' of events and interviews so that we the public will continue to watch their programs. Never mind that the insurgents can watch these same transmissions as well and plan accordingly. I remember when US forces arrived in Mogadishu and other places back in the 1990's. In the post Gulf War era this was a great thing and when Marines landed on the beaches, they had full camera crews waiting. It didn't matter that they were landing in the dark, the media had full floodlights and night vision cameras ready to capture the Marines landing. Did anyone stop to think that this was a bad idea? Why didn't they just fax the plans of the military to the opposition.

Even now, with what has happened to Prince Harry, I think it's ridiculous. I admire Harry for wanting to serve his country in uniform. No one has served in a war zone in the Royal Family since his uncle, Prince Andrew, flew helicopters during the Falklands War in 1982. Rather than letting his position of prestige be a guard against such a dangerous task, Harry fought against it for the opportunity to serve. Perhaps it was nothing more than male bravado that put him out there but at least he was making an effort. But other than the fact that he is a member of the Royal Family, what else is so significant about him? What makes him different than anyone else in his Regiment? Why should he be worthy of coverage? And knowing that he is a potentially high profile target for insurgents, why should the media leak his whereabouts? Is it simply because they are hoping that he be injured in the field so that they can gain more coverage? Do they hope his partying lifestyle will continue even in a war zone so that they can exploit it? Media freedom is good but not when it purposely endangers the lives of people. Prince Harry aside, I think the need on the part of many in the media to have unrestricted access to such things is too much.