Keeping mum: Harry & the media
Sir Michael Jackson, the former chief of the general staff in the British army, was interviewed by Andrew Marr this morning about Prince Harry’s recent return from the front line in Afghanistan. He praised the UK media for not reporting the young prince’s tour.
I do have some sympathy for the kid. He wants to do his job. But because he is a royal prince, he will never be ‘just one of the guys’. He gave it a good go though, and the coverage of his homecoming has been gushingly positive.
But I can’t understand why Britons aren’t outraged about the whole exercise. Think about it. When governments and the media sit around a table and decide together what news will be reported, it’s time to worry.
The army’s proposal for the blackout was inappropriate; that the editors agreed is shocking. And that the secret plan worked for as long as it did is terrifying.
I’m with Channel 4’s Jon Snow who commented, “One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust the media again.”
It makes you wonder what else they’re not telling us.
Filed under: public relations
Subscribe to our feed
Subscribe by Email
For once, I totally disagree with you. You sound like Max Clifford!
I (and many others) are impressed that the media can show this restraint when the circumstances are explained to them (lives are at risk) and when there’s the carrot of access to dangle in front of them.
I’m sure you seek to work cooperatively with the media on behalf of your clients, so where’s the difference?
It’s also enlightening to look back and realise we didn’t miss the ‘party prince’ throughout the extended Christmas, New Year and Valentine’s period.
Ouch! Me like Max Clifford? That hurts, Richard.
I think that MC’s beef is that he sees this a simple puff piece to rehabilitate the young man’s image. And that is an aspect that needs discussion, I agree. (MC’s probably just PO’d that they had the temerity to pull if off without his input.)
I freely admit that I make a living trying to influence the media. But I am not the government and I have never asked for a national news blackout.
They managed to gag the entire British fourth estate. If they did it once, what’s to say they won’t do it again?
Come on Richard, you have to admit that it’s a little bit scary, right?
Maybe it’s harder to accept criticism of your own country, and easier to dish it out to others. (For example, how could the Russian presidential election be free and fair when one candidate gained the bulk of media coverage?)
I can see the dangers of gagging the press (it was Margaret Thatcher who used to say ‘you can’t have a free society without a free press’) but I interpreted this story differently. In this case, the media signed up for a voluntary ‘non-disclosure’ agreement. (BTW I strongly resisted these when I worked in PR consultancy because I doubted they would work and knew they weren’t enforceable.) So I was impressed the agreement held for fully ten weeks.
I’m afraid i disagree with you when you comment that the british media and the government are colluding behind the British peoples backs.
Look at the situation, this was not an act of betrayal to the British people or a cover-up, it was an act of responsibility and well done the British media for sticking to it!
Jack you are right. We do disagree. It’s a fact that they did collude; they’re on record about that. But have to admit, it’s pretty amazing that the media respected the embargo for as long as they did.
As for the motive? I don’t think it’s as pure as you are willing to believe. Surely the ’safest’ course of action would have been not to send the Prince to the front line?
I see where your coming from but the fact is he “was” sent because he is a soldier of the British army and is required to serve, despite his royal status.
The next step was then to decide how he could do this in the safest possible manner and this was just that. I don’t belive there was “colluding” going on, I belive it was a decision that needed to be made with secrecy to keep Harry safe and I feel the majority of Britons will understand and accept that!
I looked and looked for an evil conspiracy here, and all I saw was someone emerging from a fishbowl life to spend time fighting in a fairly dangerous war. Without the cooperation of the media, the lives of many people would have been unnecessarily at risk.
If anything, this was a sign of respect to the people of the U.K. by the media and the government. It would have been disrespectful to anyone who has fought in a war to have trotted out Harry as a token soldier, without giving him the chance to serve in a war zone.
The group that should be protesting loudest is the Taliban, who have missed an opportunity to rain hell down upon whatever British units they might have thought the prince was serving in. Fortunately for them, they’ll still be able to explode IEDs and strap suicide bombs to people. The media and the government can’t take that away from them, despite this conspiracy of silence.
Eric, like I said, I feel for the guy who just wants to do his job. But he is a Royal, and frankly, you just can’t get around that fact. As for a sign of respect? We’ll I guess I can see your point. But don’t you think there was a little self-interest involved?