EYE ON ETHICS

When news of Britain’s Prince Harry’s secret deployment to Afghanistan was revealed by the media, the decision of the British press to agree not to report the deployment became a subject of lively debate in journalism circles in the West.

Some media critics such as Roy Greenslade of the British newspaper The Guardian said the British press was wrong, since by agreeing not to report the Prince’s deployment it exercised self-censorship and failed in its duty of informing the public.

Other media groups including BBC and UK’s Society of Editors said it was correct to hold back coverage since it was a national security matter and reportage would have only unnecessarily heightened the risks Prince Harry would encounter in Afghanistan.

But the decision was surprising for two reasons. First, the British press has a reputation for closely following the lives of the Windsors—or the “royals” as a whole. And second, it doggedly covered the negotiations to get Harry sent to Iraq last year, which made British military authorities decide against his deployment there.

British Military authorities said the media attention ensured that Harry and his unit would be more vulnerable once it is known that he’s serving in a unit in Iraq.

UK’s Society of Editors said in a statement that it did not intend to mislead the public about the prince’s whereabouts when it agreed to the news blackout. It said the decision was made because the “army chiefs had decided the prince would go to war and it would be wrong to put him and his soldier colleagues at extra risk by publicizing his deployment in advance.”

In exchange for keeping mum about Harry’s deployment, the press would be given special access to the prince before, during, and after his tour of duty in Afghanistan. The statement said this would have given the public a better insight into the prince’s activities.

The statement did not address certain valid questions the public could have raised, among them: Wasn’t it in the British public’s best interest to know that the third in line for the British throne was going to war? And given the prince’s stature, should he have the right to “go to war” in the first place? Would not putting the prince out of harm’s way, in this case not deploying him to a war zone, pose the least risk to national security? Can’t the British military establishment itself be faulted for going along with what could have been a royal whim to get to “where the action is”? And what does it say about a press that in effect put pleasing the monarchy above the public’s right to know?

In an article on the issue last Feb. 29, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) in effect asked precisely that last question. CJR said the debate may not be as simply framed as which should take precedence between national security and the people’s right to know. The British press’s desire to accommodate the wishes of the British royal family should also be considered as a reason behind the decision to keep the public in the dark about the issue. The article pointed that the news blackout and the succeeding reports on the prince’s return was a throwback to an earlier era when the British press’s loyalty was with the monarchy and not with the public.

This was evident in the first few paragraphs of the UK Society of Editors letter. It said that in the discussions on suppressing coverage of the prince’s deployment to Afghanistan, the prince’s desperation to join his army colleagues in the front line and his family’s desire for him to fulfill his ambitions were also considered

Reporting royalty

Asian journalists who live under monarchies are no strangers to acceding to similar requests, or pulling their punches against royalty. In some countries, the restraint or cooperation is dictated by tradition while it is codified into law in others. In any case, both can interfere with the journalists’ primary duty to provide information to the public.

In Japan for example, it is a no-no for the press to pry too closely into the affairs of the Imperial family due to the people’s presumed reverence for the Chrysanthemum Throne. This kid-glove treatment of the royal family prompted several Japanese news organizations to demand an apology in June 1993 from their American counterparts for reports they deemed offensive against Masado Owada, who was then set to marry Japanese Crown Prince Naruhito. The reports were on the possibility that Owada had had other boyfriends and that she was reluctant to become princess since this would cut short her then promising career as a diplomat.

Another Asian monarch well-regarded in his country is Thai King Bhumibol Adulyadej. However, veneration and custom is not the only reason that prevents Thais from criticism of their monarchs. Thailand has les majeste laws which punish offenders with three to 15 year jail terms for criticizing the royal family.

But while the immense popularity of the Thai king is enough to discourage criticism against him by his people, the same could not be said for the other monarchs of Asia who do not enjoy popular support.

The press in several Asian countries which are absolute monarchies find it difficult to report on the performance of their leaders due to laws intolerant of critical reporting and commentary on the members of the royal families. Among the countries that have laws punishing critical reporting against the monarchy are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudia Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Monarchy, as a form of government, has long gone out of fashion in the modern world, and for very sound reasons, among them the fact that they’re the anti-thesis of democratic rule.

Of the few that still remain, people have preferred that royals serve only as national symbols instead of hands-on administrators and decision makers. The previous belief that royals have the divine right to rule over people has been discarded by the truth that authority should emanate from the people. As such, the people also have the right to question, and the press the right to report, the actions of everyone including the “blue- blooded”.

While some monarchs are genuinely revered and respected by their people, this should not hold the press back from commenting negatively against their leaders when they commit mistakes. To do otherwise would be a disservice to the truth and the public—the only lords to whom the press should owe any loyalty.

Your thoughts on the subject would be most welcome.