The main function of journalism is the objective dissemination of information for the purpose of informing the public. However, this objective has been skewed since the introduction of sensationalism and citizen journalism entered the medium. Journalists feel as though any major news information is up for grabs for the public. Yet, what if this information can put and an extremely important and influential public figure in danger? As it states is McQuail, “Journalist also ‘deny a moral responsibility for unintentionally negative consequence of their reports’ (1990: 307), while applying a stronger standard to others” (288). Therefore does dispersing potentially harmful information regarding national security and the safety of internally prominent figures, just for the sake of informing the public, the ‘right’ of journalism?
This intro provides food for thought for an article found on The New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/01/business/media/01harry.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1204394415-pdVOV4E+7feFgfvy4MRTDw&oref=slogin ). Matt Drudge, a blogger whose website http://www.drudgereport.com/ garners 21 million hits a day, claimed to have the world exclusive on Prince Harry, the third in line for the British throne, is a soldier in Afghanistan fighting with the Household Cavalry Regiment Battlegroup. An agreement was made between Great Britain and their respective medium to keep the information about Prince Harry’s actions as a soldier confidential. However, if Prince Harry were to cause a stir as a civilian, like go to an Afghani night club, this information would be open to the public. As a result of this revealing, Prince Harry must leave Afghanistan weeks ahead of schedule. “In interviews, Prince Harry revealed that he had not washed in 4 days and that he was enjoying a life of semi-normalcy among regular soldiers.” Generally speaking, American journalists keep the conduct of prominent government officials in hostile regions out of the public eye, for national and personal security purposes.
McQuail goes into a little bit of detail about independent news sources, like blogs. “There is also a great deal and wide variety of independent news sources (Sundae and Ness, 2001), plus much that is unprofessional and idiosyncratic. This can be interpreted as both positive and negative. Boczkowski (2004) sees journalism becoming less journalist centred and more user centred, as well as losing its clear boundary as a professional activity” (289). The point that McQuail makes in this assortment is that writers of independent news sources are more focused on their users, and how to get more users, than the ideals and standards that hare held by professional and educated journalist for reputable news sources. So question that could be asked here is, is it the responsibility of journalist, independent and professional alike, to keep certain information away from the public for the purpose of high security?
Posted on behalf of Alyssa Jones.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I definitely think that journalists should respect high profile citizens of this world, especially ones that America has good relations with. I'm not sure if Drudge realized what he was doing when he posted that blog, all his saw was the hits that he was going to get on his website, not the hits that Prince Harry and his fellow soldiers could have gotten on the front lines of Afghanistan if the word had leaked to enemy sources. It's extremely dangerous to give up such a pinpoint position of a high profile figure. They respect the travel arrangements of other high profile U.S. officials when they travel in dangerous territory, why not shed that same respect on friends of the U.S. as well? Even though this time served sheds a good light on Prince Harry (the article says that there is a responsible side that is shining through over his bad boy characteristics of the past) the American media should have waited until Prince Harry came home to release the information about his time in Afghanistan. Drudge and the other journalists from Germany and Australia that also printed his whereabouts obviously only had one thing in mind, themselves. It's a hot piece of news, and it's bound to sell papers and generate blog hits, but you're putting someone's life at risk. What if Prince Harry was killed because of this leak? Then there would be blame placed on the United States media, and bad relations could result from the leak, and the U.S. does not need any more enemies right now. I'm sure Drudge didn't think about that as he greedily posted his blog.
McQuail talks about pressure and demands in Chapter 11, how society demands new news and journalists feel obligated to give it to them, as their duty. I'm sure that thought ran through Drudge's head also. However, in my opinion, as a journalist he should show the same respect to Prince Harry as he does to U.S. officials who travel or work in dangerous territory, because their life is at stake.
I agree with Jill in the fact that journalists do (for the most part) and should respect high profile citizens around the world. But as for Matt Drudge not respecting the safety of Prince Henry I believe one can make all kinds of arguments. To start you can argue that Drudge is an independent journalists, he’s going to produce whatever sensational story he can to appease his readers. Also, you can say, how was Drudge supposed to know of the hush hush on the issue when only a few US media outlets even knew about the event and the agreement? But you can also play devils advocate with these arguments.
To get back to the main question, I do believe it the responsibility of journalist, independent and professional alike, to keep certain information away from the public for the purpose of high security. Even though this is my opinion I can see were its tough to answer what is right and wrong. The First Amendment states the right to freedom of speech and press, so legally Drudge didn’t do anything wrong. The issue then becomes ethical vs. legal. Ethically Drudge did the wrong thing, even though I do believe there are many outside factors like the arguments I listed above, but like I said before legally he’s innocent. McQuail states that, “the most fundamental dilemma is one of freedom versus constraint in an institution whose own ideology places value on originality and freedom, yet whose organizational setting requires relatively strict control” (306). It’s funny because my immediate thought was that of Geraldo Rivera and his controversial broadcast from Iraq…idiot.
"Schudson (1978) aptly characterized journalism as an 'uninsulated profession,' because of the lack of clear boundaries." (McQuail 288). I do strongly believe that anything that can harm American or American allie security should be kept away from the publics ear. This is a hard thing to guarantee, especially since the U.S. has been pushing freedom of the press since the start. Mistakes have been made in the past; when American first entered Iraq Hiraldo Rivera made sure to tell everyone watching T.V. where he and the troops were located, he even drew a map in the sand. This caused a commotion among the military, the media and the American people. Since there is a "lack of clear boundries," was Hiraldo excited to show the world he was in Iraq, or did he just forget that it was the start of a war and he put himself and others at risk?
Independent bloggers are a different story. Since they are more concerned about keeping and gaining an audience I believe they would discuss private matters, but then again, how exactly would a private blogger gain access to U.S. news before anyone else unless they were of very high importance?
Journalists, in my opinion, are some of the most important gatekeepers in the media. They are the Christopher "Big Black" Boykin of bouncers. Before news directors even get ahold of the stories, journalists decide what the stories are going to be made of. Because of this, journalists have a heightened responsbility to keep public safety in the forefront of their minds.
Now of course I remember freedom of speech, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Alyssa, the example of Prince Harry is perfect. I know a lot of people may not take Prince Harry's enlistment in the military very seriously, but he is definitely at a higher risk than most soldiers. Honestly, I can't believe the British press stayed quiet for so long, but it doesn't matter how long they stayed quiet once they leak. Is it really that important that Harry went to a nightclub?? Get a life!!
McQuail brings up the point of whether or not journalists should be considered professionals at all: ..."they behave very selectively with those they have to deal with and professionals should treat everyone equally" (288). This goes along with what Alyssa mentions about journalists' lack of moral responsibility for negative consequences of a report. If journalists aren't considered professionals, then I suppose they don't have a duty to correctly inform the public or take into consideration matters of national security. Based on McQuail's guidelines, I think there are not many journalists who are truly "professionals". Other posts have mentioned civic journalism, which is where a lot of the other journalists seem to fall. It is becoming very hard to see the difference between true, objective journalism and that which is biased or agenda-based.
But professional or not, journalists should WANT to protect the public and inform them with the truth!
I definitely agree that news journalists need to censor themselves in regards to the type of information they let out to the public. I think that the majority of the public would rather not know top secret information that could put our country or important figures in danger, than know for knowing sake. To me this is what defines professionalism for a journalist, ethics. To know what is right to print and what is not. In popular professional settings withholding sensitive information is a respected and practiced among journalists, but I think the problem and danger lays in the Internet. Bloggers like Matt Drudge are not really professionals in journalism; they are sensationalists looking for increased hits to their website. There is no code of ethics that bloggers follow; pretty much anything goes on message boards and on independent websites. McQuail states, “It can also be argued that the critical role of the press may oblige it at times to act in an ‘irresponsible’ way, as defined by established institutions. There is some evidence of increased tolerance for ‘unethical’ practices.” (288). People continually visit these sites because of the information they can find there; things that would never be broadcasted on respected TV news programs or newspapers, and breaking news. This increases the demand on bloggers to put those ethics aside and give the people the sensationalized and exclusive stories that they crave.
I was just thinking that this is similar to the recent movie, “Untraceable”. In the movie, a serial killer is able to kill his victims through hits on his website. The more people that visit the site, the fast the person dies. As the plot continues more and more people visit the site because of the hype associated with it, not because they want to harm anyone. I think this is where blogging is dangerous, not in the extreme case of a serial murderer but that people will just go to a site and read the new posts because of the hype. I bet that the majority of the people who read that Prince Harry story found that story because it was “breaking news” and wanted to be kept in the loop, not because they are perpetually interested in Prince Harry’s life.
I think it should be the main objective of journalists to report the most important and relevant news to the audience that is going to be recieving it.
Do I give an elephants behind if Prince Harry is in Iraq or not? No. This shouldn't be headline news. First, because it puts his safety in jeopardy, but second, because there are other, more important things going on in Iraq than where Prince Harry is.
I think the lines between what is valuable news and what isn't has been wiped away with the rise of celebrity obsession in this country and in general.
Post a Comment