Drudge ethics question

[JR]

I read the Times of London coverage again and I still say there's something fishy.

Oh, I have no doubt he's done an admirable job and all but it all sounds a little too perfect.

But then, I'm not the biggest fan of those layabouts over there so I may be prejudiced.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

The oxymoron in this thread title fork-bombed my computer.

Thanks, MV.

 

[GB-Hack]

While I may have my own prejudices about it JR, I'm actually proud that Harry would get out there and involve himself in this.

It is real, and as his nickname within the Household Cavalry would indicate ('Bullet magnet') would indicate, he would be a huge target for the forced they are fighting in whatever country.

Prince Andrew was the last member of the royal family to serve in combat when he was a member of the Royal Navy in the Falklands war as a helicopter co-pilot. When they enlist in wartime, they do actively serve, rather than sit behind a desk.

 

[DanOregon]

Drudge rarely "breaks" stories that some entity doesn't want broken. He nailed John Kerry and his mistress four years ago. Oh, that's right he was wrong about that.
And I thought Harry was a tank commander?

 

[Boom_70]

jr is just embarrassed because Canada wants to cut and run.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

And that would be another pile of crap.
They stayed in Afghanistan even after a couple of our doped-up pilots killed their soldiers.

 

[markvid]

Hmmmm...Matty put down the cabana boy long enough to fix the site to eliminate all references to the story being a WORLD EXCLUSIVE. But others sites still have it as such, so his work is done. They perpetuate the fraud for him.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

If he's the first one who broke it, that's disgraceful. I wish there were a journalists Bar - like for lawyers that could censure this type of behavior, though on second thought, even if there were, they probably wouldn't.

I thought that this would be about the fact that hours after his death, there was no mention of WFB yesterday, I wondered why.

 

[SigR]

The way some of you talk on this thread, sounds like you'd prefer a good wholesome state-run media. The scum reporters keep the other ones from getting too far up the rear-ends of the governments they cover. That's fine by me. I'd rather read news that has a chance of being wrong than propaganda that can't be challenged.

 

[GB-Hack]

There's a difference between being a state-run media, and not disclosing the location of the man who is third in line to the British throne.

What happened to American journalists who disclosed the locations of the forces they were embedded with at the beginning of the Iraq war? I'm looking in particular at the treatment Geraldo got.

Fox News said Tuesday that Geraldo Rivera had voluntarily agreed to leave the warfront in Iraq and return to Kuwait, where he would continue his reports. Rivera had been accused of revealing sensitive information about the location and strategy of the combat force with which he had been traveling, angering Pentagon officials.

 

[zeke12]

The way some of you talk on this thread, sounds like you'd prefer a good wholesome state-run media. The scum reporters keep the other ones from getting too far up the rear-ends of the governments they cover. That's fine by me. I'd rather read news that has a chance of being wrong than propaganda that can't be challenged.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this response.

 

[SigR]

The way some of you talk on this thread, sounds like you'd prefer a good wholesome state-run media. The scum reporters keep the other ones from getting too far up the rear-ends of the governments they cover. That's fine by me. I'd rather read news that has a chance of being wrong than propaganda that can't be challenged.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this response.

Please try. Not saying that in a combative way. I'd like to hear how it is flawed from your perspective.

 

[Football_Bat]

Blue font?

 

[SigR]

There's a difference between being a state-run media, and not disclosing the location of the man who is third in line to the British throne.

What happened to American journalists who disclosed the locations of the forces they were embedded with at the beginning of the Iraq war? I'm looking in particular at the treatment Geraldo got.

Fox News said Tuesday that Geraldo Rivera had voluntarily agreed to leave the warfront in Iraq and return to Kuwait, where he would continue his reports. Rivera had been accused of revealing sensitive information about the location and strategy of the combat force with which he had been traveling, angering Pentagon officials.

There's a significant difference between revealing tactical positions in an ongoing war and revealing that a famous individual is participating in the war. If the Prince is such an important person, why would he put himself in a position where he'd be a target because of that persona. It's selfish. It's egomaniacal. And shame on whoever is in charge of the theater of operation in Britain to allow him to take on that role.

To fault anyone in the media for "outing" Prince Harry or whatever gentleman's agreement was reached with the "respectable" media is to ask that the "respectable" media play propaganda machine for warfare, warriors, government and royalty.

 

[Boom_70]

There's a difference between being a state-run media, and not disclosing the location of the man who is third in line to the British throne.

What happened to American journalists who disclosed the locations of the forces they were embedded with at the beginning of the Iraq war? I'm looking in particular at the treatment Geraldo got.

Fox News said Tuesday that Geraldo Rivera had voluntarily agreed to leave the warfront in Iraq and return to Kuwait, where he would continue his reports. Rivera had been accused of revealing sensitive information about the location and strategy of the combat force with which he had been traveling, angering Pentagon officials.

There's a significant difference between revealing tactical positions in an ongoing war and revealing that a famous individual is participating in the war. If the Prince is such an important person, why would he put himself in a position where he'd be a target because of that persona. It's selfish. It's egomaniacal. And shame on whoever is in charge of the theater of operation in Britain to allow him to take on that role.

To fault anyone in the media for "outing" Prince Harry or whatever gentleman's agreement was reached with the "respectable" media is to ask that the "respectable" media play propaganda machine for warfare, warriors, government and royalty.

Exactly - Geraldo was specific in location. Drudge just said Harry was in country. He did not say that he was 2 clicks west of Khandar.

I am always disgusted when I hear that the U.S. media was a willing particpant in covering something up.

 

[Write-brained]

That didn't need to be told until after his tour was over, it's not for Drudge to leave the gay bar long enough to decide what is news and what isn't.

Oh, oh...did Fedora Fruity lie?

Bet he gave the other 2 credit until the story was confirmed to cover his ass (which has been bent over most his adult life anyway), then decided to **** them over.

Homophobic much?

Cripes. This is a journalism board, not a college basketball arena ... grow the **** up.

 

[jgmacg]

I am always disgusted when I hear that the U.S. media was a willing particpant in covering something up.

To fault anyone in the media for "outing" Prince Harry or whatever gentleman's agreement was reached with the "respectable" media is to ask that the "respectable" media play propaganda machine for warfare, warriors, government and royalty.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/23/bush.caskets/

NAPLES, Florida (CNN) -- President Bush was "moved" by recently published photos of caskets containing U.S. military personnel slain in Iraq but stands by his policy barring their publication, a White House spokesman said Friday.

 

[zeke12]

The way some of you talk on this thread, sounds like you'd prefer a good wholesome state-run media. The scum reporters keep the other ones from getting too far up the rear-ends of the governments they cover. That's fine by me. I'd rather read news that has a chance of being wrong than propaganda that can't be challenged.

It's logically specious.

All news has a "chance" of being wrong. The difference lies between those trying to get it right and those who don't care.

And somehow bestowing some public service motive or even effect on Drudge belies a serious lack of paying attention. It just isn't so.

Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is a strawman argument to begin with, unless you think someone on here is seriously arguing for state-run media.

So, all told, there are three serious logical flaws, starting with the premise and radiating out from there.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Sig's asking a legitimate question. I believe its basic premises are flawed, but it's legitimate.
Drudge doesn't "report" in any real sense. If you work for a news outlet, and you think your editors are sitting on a hot scoop, regardless of whether there's sufficient proof to publish, or even any proof at all, you leak it to Drudge and then he "reports" the controversy and, in doing so, prints the news your organization has yet to see fit to publish. Leaving aside how completely disloyal to your peers this is, it doesn't meet any standards I've ever heard of.

 

[CollegeJournalist]

Let's Americanize this:

If George W. Bush had a son in the Marines/Army in Iraq, would American news outlets report it?