Across the pond

Just when I thought I was out on my own over the Prince Harry story I find that Jon Snow has been saying much the same thing in his Snowmail, and last night put similar views on Channel Four News last night, which I missed. He was immediately criticised by the managing editor of The Sun, Graham Dudman, for not being the impartial news anchor. Dudman forgets that the justification for settting up Channel Four, as a second commercial channel in Britain, was that it would do something different from ITV, with more discussion, more adult programmes and with a brief to voice dissenting opinions which were not getting airtime elsewhere. This morning’s Guardian also departed from the rest of the media pack.

It had a front page teaser   with battledress picture and caption: ‘Dirty Harry, dog of war or prince of public relations?’ Why did it take The Guardian so long? Maybe it was shame, because The Guardian went along with the pack in agreeing to keep it all secret. Or maybe it took The Guardian wits that long to think up the caption for that picture, which hit home harder than a thousand editorials.

Inside The Guardian has a double page spread, headlined: ‘A right royal coup – how the MoD won over the media’. There was a strap across the top of other newspaper front pages, mostly all similar to ‘Harry the secret hero’  (Daily Express) and ‘One of our boys’ (The Sun). The cuckoo in that particular nest was ‘Failed’ (The Independent), which on close examination relates to a story about leaked Downing Street report which suggests that political interfence is preventing teachers teaching students properly.

The Guardian spread is, I hope, the start of a serious debate about the media’s agreement to censor itself. But I am not too hopeful. The Guardian’s heavyweight media blogger, Professor Roy Greenslade, can find nothing wrong with the media agreeing to a news blackout. Even The Independent, according to its leader this morning, does not fault it. It says that:

The prince’s determination to serve his country in the same way as other soldiers is admirable.

But that is not the point. The Prince cannot be one of the blokes. The Army is endangering his life, and the lives of those who serve around him, by sending him. It is not the job of the British press to act as a recruiting sergeant for the Brithish army.  It is not the job of the British press to act as public relations officers for the Royal Family.

But, one of the reasons, and perhaps the most important one, the British press went along with the self-censorship. The quid pro quo, which was full access which they could use later. Because the bottom line for all newspapers, including the heavies, is that royal coverage does help to sell newspapers. The Royal Family is Britain’s longest running and favourite soap opera. Keeping them going costs us a lot but, of course, but it is very good for the tourist trade. And even today’s Republicans don’t want to chop off their heads.

The reality of war is not enobling. The stress of being under fire is a serious danger to mental health. Shooting other human beings is also often a threat to mental health, though the harmful consequences do not emerge quite often until years later. One newspaper this morning lauds the 23-year-old Harry for shooting 30 Taliban. If he has done, I wonder how he is going to feel about it years later. Presumably he has inherited some genes from his father and mother, both of whom were sensitive to the realities of modern warfare. On the front Prince Harry, apparently learnt to talk about the enemy as ‘Terry Taliban and his mates’, (Terry being short for terrorist). How will Harry feel when he realises that some of the Taliban were probably even younger than himself, who had been encouraged to take up arms by their elders, to defend their country and their religion from foreign domination.