Results matching “media blackout on te”

A press title, what more a gossip weekly, apologizing for breaking the scoop of the year? Pacific Magazines, publisher of the Australian magazine New Idea, said it regretted having broken the story about Prince Harry's deployment in Afghanistan.

It also said it wasn't aware an embargo existed, as was the case for many British news editors.

The story published by New Idea stayed on the magazine website until it was reprinted by German title Bild, picked up by the Drudge Report, and finally made public in the UK media.

However, the Guardian takes a critical stance towards New Idea's decision:

"No one in editorial checked the cuttings - had they done so they would have seen that not a word had been printed elsewhere about the prince's deployment, and that might have alerted them to check the story with the Ministry of Defence to verify that it was true."

But, as pointed out by a senior source at the magazine, it's hard to imagine the MoD didn't prepare for this scenario, and the story illustrates the difficulty of keeping a news embargo in the digital age (although the 10-week duration of the embargo also showed that mainstream media still have a powerful grip over the news agenda).

"The British press was on a voluntary news blackout but I'd be surprised if any other publication in Australia or elsewhere in the world was aware of it. This illustrates the challenge of marrying this kind of embargo with the 21st-century media."

The Guardian wonders "about who will carry the can at New Idea." But should anybody? Let us know your thoughts.

Source: Guardian

In a new article, Emily Bell, editor-in-chief of the Guardian Unlimited, tackles the question of how media outlets should adapt in a world where "anyone can publish anything, about anyone, anywhere at anytime."

Two current events illustrate the relevance of this question: The Druge Report break of Prince Harry's military location, and the British government probing into the activities of BBC political editor Nick Robinson following his blogging about the controversy over House of Commons speaker Michael Martin.

Bell contends that the British government reaction is likely because Robinson's comments surfaced through the newer, more informal media form of a blog.

In Bell's eyes, the two incidents raises questions about the "erosion of central control in journalism" and point to the inevitable reality that "facts will increasingly surface outside conventional channels."

When news can be leaked at any given moment by anyone, the debate between privacy and free speech becomes even trickier for established media. For Bell, the line should be drawn at "no story is worth a life,"  a principle that can be applied to the media blackout on Prince Harry's location.

Others, however, feel that the blackout will affect the media's credibility.

Source: The Guardian 

Since last week's news that Prince Harry (left) was taking part in frontline military operations in Afghanistan, many are wondering why the media agreed to such a long and unanimous blackout. Was it a successful public relations stunt pulled off by the British Ministry of Defence? Did the media and newspapers fail to carry out their news mission by agreeing to the blackout? A little of both, surely.

In the Guardian, Bob Satchell, executive editor of the Society of Editors in the UK, tries explaining the decision.

"It was an extraordinary and rare display of unity for national and regional newspaper and magazine editors and broadcasters not to report the story," he writes. This can be considered positive, as a sign of cohesion among media outlets. It is also disturbing, for that same reason.

According to Satchwell, journalists "were anxious that it (the blackout) might dilute their future credibility with the public." But Satchwell argues that the blackout actually led to improved coverage, since the media traded their secret against privileged embedded access to the prince.

Not everybody buys that argument though and Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute in the US strongly contests the media's decision.

"It's their long-term collusion with the government that so seriously undermines the media's credibility in this case.

"The reasons for withholding the news were not justifiable. The time period was inappropriately long. The collaborative agreement among many news agencies was counter to the spirit of an independent press."

According to Guardian columnist Peter Wilby, "it's just a blatant PR stunt."

"To my mind, this was propaganda for a war of dubious legitimacy and declining public popularity." Undoubtedly, news of Prince Harry's deployment was widely echoed throughout the media, usually with positive luster both for the royal family and the war.

"Harry and the Gurkhas give the Taliban a pasting," announced the Express. He was "fighting the fanatics", according to the Daily Mail. And so on.

As previously argued, another bigger winner of the Prince Harry blackout is the Drudge Report (and new independent media in general), who forced traditional media to follow after breaking the news.

In the end, readers will be the ones to decide whether the blackout was justified, and how deeply this case will affect media's credibility.

Source: Guardian (here, here and here) - New York Times (picture) - Poynter Institute

UK broadcast and online media ran stories yesterday about Prince Harry's military deployment with the British Army in Afghanistan, after the US Drudge Report broke the blackout that UK media had agreed on with the Ministry of Defence.

A deal had been made between British media and the Ministry of Defence not to report on Prince Harry's frontline position, for fear that he may become a privileged target for Talibans, in return for access to the prince during his deployment.

According to the Guardian, the story had already been broken by Australian women's magazine New Idea on Jan. 7. In fact, many insiders are surprised the blackout lasted two months.

Significantly though, UK media only decided to run the story after it was broken by US news blogger Drudge, showing how much influence he has acquired. Yesterday, nearly all of the national newspapers, except for The Independent, ran the story on their front page.

"I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us," said Sir General Dannatt, head of the British Army.

"This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas outlets, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations."

Should Drudge have broken the news? Should UK media have agreed to the blackout for so long? In any case, this story illustrates the powerful effects of Web 2.0: one influential blogger's scoop can lead to a massive reaction for all traditional media.

Prince Harry is expected to be taken off the front now that the news has been broken.

Source: Brand Republic - Guardian

ABC reports that Chinese authorities have tightened media coverage of the recent mining disaster that killed at least 203 miners in a gas explosion at a colliery in the country's north-east. Local journalists in Liaoning province where the blast occurred say government officials, apparently from China's central propaganda department, have ordered a local news blackout. Local papers are to only use material supplied by the national State-controlled news agency.

Source: ABC News

ABC reports that Chinese authorities have tightened media coverage of the recent mining disaster that killed at least 203 miners in a gas explosion at a colliery in the country's north-east. Local journalists in Liaoning province where the blast occurred say government officials, apparently from China's central propaganda department, have ordered a local news blackout. Local papers are to only use material supplied by the national State-controlled news agency.

Source: ABC News

Bill Werde's article for the New York Times raises some serious questions about the fairness of photojournalism. The article questions why Getty Images failed to include a photograph of Todd Bertuzzi of the Vancouver Canucks punching Steve Moore of the Colorado Avalanche last month. "Getty Images markets itself as an unbiased source of news photos with ethical standards that compare favorably to competitors like Reuters or The Associated Press. But even though a Getty photographer was at the game, no photos of Mr. Bertuzzi's cheap shot made it to Getty's wire service, raising questions about whether Getty's deal for exclusive marketing rights with the AmericanNational Hockey League had anything to do with the image blackout." Should photojournalism and news agencies have strong business relationships with sports bodies and if so will the sports events always be shown in a biased way as we have seen here.

Source: New York Times.