Here's one for you...

Many times we have discussed the role of the media in current affairs, especially the role of biased media in the War on Terror, and it’s battlegrounds in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many times we have all contrasted the difference between the media’s coverage in ’91 to the media’s coverage in ’01 and beyond.

Now, the role of “embedded” journalists in the Gulf War of ’91 has been understood to be “regulated” by the military. The primary source of information concerning the war was given by the Pentagon, and not by professional journalists in the field. Footage from the field was seen to support or corroborate the information that was being given in the Defense Department briefings that we all recall seeing on a daily basis.

I still think this was a good way to manage information to the country. No one could cry “foul” with any real enthusiasm, as the bulk of the nation and ALL of the opposition groups that wanted a voice could find whatever they needed in counter-point journalism online or on TV at any time. However, it meant something (to me, anyway) that the PRIMARY source of official news was the US Military… and not CNN or ABC or CBS. As important a source as CNN was during this conflict, they still could only scroll between the reporters in Baghdad and the Pentagon press room.

Tragedies like the bombing of the Amiriyah bunker in Feb. of ’91 brought to light some of the failings of this kind of information dissemination, but don’t (in my opinion) negate its function in society. Had the military announced the action immediately as the unfortunate collateral deaths of hundreds of civilians caused by the Iraqi policy of using non-combatants as shields from Coalition bombs, rather than remaining mute until the story was completely broken by the BBC and other foreign media outlets, perhaps the impressions made at home would have been more favorable.

The intervening years brought many criticisms of the policy from the public sectors, and mainly from the mainstream media outlets. Calls that the information given was intended to make the war look sterile and automatic were legitimate, but no more so than the bias now brought about by the agendas of the anti-Bush liberal press in their coverage of the Iraq War. I have always failed to see why the military would be expected to give any different point of view than the one that they are expected to hold when executing combat operations… i.e. that they maintain a cold, detached and distant position from the operations they conduct, and the consequences of those operations.

In discussing this issue, we here at the Bund have agreed that some degree of “official” regard to what information is made public and what isn’t and when it is made public is a GOOD THING. So many points could be made in defense of this… historical, tactical, strategic, moral, ethical… that I won’t even try to go into them now. The other side of the coin would argue that ALL information must be made available IMMEDIATELY as a guaranty of the freedoms of the First Amendment.

As much of a supporter of the First Amendment as I am… this argument is absolute crap.

For example…

The blog run by Matt Drudge called the “Drudge Report” (see Ryan’s link to the right) is a frequently-cited source for many conservative pundits looking for topical news headlines. Little of what one find on the page is original material… the rest is simply links to other news or information outlets. Yesterday, Drudge ran an article link stating the British Royal Prince Harry was pulling front-line service with his Household Cavalry Regiment, Blues and Royals.

This surprise was made all the greater when it was learned that he had been there for more than 10 weeks, and that the BBC and other British and Commonwealth news agencies had promised to keep the news quiet until such time as the Prince and his units were no longer under an added degree of danger because of the Prince’s position. This is important… it wasn’t only the Prince that was being protected, but the 1500 men he serves with due to the nature of Harry’s position and his perceived value as a terror target. It seems that 25 weeks of combat duty on the front-lines of Afghanistan is tough enough, without the added threat of such a “valuable” target as the third in line for the British Throne.

So, Drudge breaks the story. In only hours, every media outlet in the world is broadcasting the news that Harry is in the mountains of Afghanistan, only a few miles from the Pakistani border… some of the most dangerous ground in the war on terror one could hope to find.

My question is this: What purpose does this serve? How is the “conservative” cause fronted by Drudge better off with the news that Harry is serving in the Stan? Does it matter to anyone that this man literally fought tooth and nail to get the assignment at all, and now it will be cut short because the news broke early? Did Drudge have a responsibility… ethical, if not legal… to check with someone before posting it to his website? Say Whitehall? Or Downing Street? Or even the US State Department?

I’m not judging here. This is a serious question. I know the man has the RIGHT to publish the news, guaranteed under the Constitution’s First Amendment. However, just because one has the right to do something, doesn’t mean it should be done. Just because one CAN do something, does that mean one MUST do that thing?