Or "link journalist" I suppose, which is an interesting side-development.

If you’ve missed the couple-thousand reports, Drudge is being credited with blowing Prince Harry’s cover in Afghanistan, who was on track toward Arthurian legend status by single-handedly taking out 30 Taliban. (Actually, he organized the air strikes that took out 30 Taliban). Legend-building aside, everyone gives him the proper respect (at least) for serving his country in battle.

Drudge Report Logo
(Photo Credit: Drudge Report)

Drudge broke the news of where Harry was stationed. Sort of. He’s being blamed for it anyway, considering the vast reach of his link blog in the United States. But really, he was relaying information published in both Aussie women’s mag "New Idea" two weeks ago, and in German news source "Bild" yesterday.

The interesting thing about that is neither of these publications appeared aware of a UK-wide embargo the press agreed to in order to protect Harry’s royal behind on behalf of the British government. Another interesting thing about that is while "Bild’s" article is still up on the Web, "New Idea’s" search links, one of which points out Harry’s whereabouts in Afghanistan and another one – published in November – reporting Harry would not serve in Iraq, redirect to a generic biography.

The editor of "New Idea" says the magazine was unaware of the 10-week embargo UK journalists had thus far honored. The end result: Harry was sent home where it’s safe. Drudge, "New Idea," and "Bild," then, regardless of the debate that is now ensuing about responsible reporting and government-press collusion, sort of did him a favor. My bet is there’s a lot of troops who’d like to go home, also.

Here too, you have those fundamental differences between Britain and the US that have gone back a couple of centuries. One involves the traditional American rejection of nobility by birthright and special treatment (please, no Bush/National Guard jabs; I’m talking about nationally-held mythos and the supposed hegemony pushed by every American textbook and talk radio host), but that’s another topic.  The other fundamental difference is the relationship between the press and the government.

Assuming there’s not, in the 21st century, a massive collusion between the mainstream press, their corporate owners, and government spooks (and there’s every bit of evidence there may be, fellow conspiracy theorists), the ideals established by the US Constitution provide a distinct separation between the government and the press. It’s a free-speech and government accountability thing.
 

How can a watchdog hold the government accountable if the watchdog obeys when it’s told to heel? 

I won’t say that the American press doesn’t sit on things for various reasons. Most often, "sitting" is the result of a relationship built between the press and PR firms, who ask the press to honor embargoes. Every journalist knows he is not legally bound to an embargo, but honors them anyway most of the time in order to keep a good relationship with those who have access to information.

Similar deals are often struck with politicians or government employees, too: If you keep this bit of information to yourself, we’ll give you better information. Though you’d be hard-pressed to prove that. It’s a pretty intricate dance of give-and-take.

Add to that already tenuous relationship, pressures from corporate owners to produce thrice as much news in a given time-period, and a public relations field that employs more PR reps than there are journalists (remember, it’s all about controlling the message), and you’ve got a sophisticated, self-regulating press corps. 

So I’m not saying that embargoes have no place in journalism, or that they don’t happen in American journalism. I’m also not saying that British journalists should have run out and reported Harry’s whereabouts (which isn’t too far off from CNN being on the beach when US troops got there in Desert Storm). But at the same time, it raises questions about just how cozy the British press is with the British government, and how much they don’t report in order to maintain their relationships.

The same question, I guess, goes to the American press.

But as far as Drudge goes, he makes a pretty convenient person to point fingers at when the jig is up, doesn’t he? Whether or not you ascribe to the validity of "link journalism" or blogging, Drudge illustrated the power of information gathering and dissemination while pressing a much-needed debate on ethics and proper relationships.

In times of information overload and information manipulation, it’s refreshing to think there are still good-old-fashioned whistle-blowers out there. I’ve said it before: Bloggers will save journalism, and this is just another reason why. 
 

Through advocate organization Committee to Protect Bloggers, a group dedicated to highlighting free speech and humans rights violations international bloggers face, Hopkins and Schartz created “Blogswana,” a one-year pilot project designed to give a voice to Botswana citizenry otherwise unable to tell their stories.

The project will enlist a group of 20 college students from a major university who will devote a year to “blogging for others” in the southern African nation with the aim of highlighting those affected by HIV/AIDS.

Students would have a “partner” for whom they would set up a blog in addition to their own blog. All students and partner blog posts would be funneled to a central website.

“In other words,” writes freelance journalist and Committee to Protect Bloggers president Hopkins, “they would create a blog for someone, say a farmer in a remote village who had neither the money for the hardware, nor the expertise, nor perhaps the time or literacy, to blog himself, or to an urban prostitute, or a nurse in an AIDS hospice, or a politician, or a minister.

“They would go out, at least once a month, interview this person, maybe take photos, video or audio, return to their computer and blog for this person. They would take the comments and questions out to the person the next time they went out.”

Hopkins expresses the concern that traditional journalism, with its stings of editors, sponsor pressures, and memetic tendencies, is naturally limited in the attention that can be given to what many in the West see as an “abstract tragedy.” In addition, journalism can also lack the “insider” feel that weblogs are so adept at providing.

“One thing that both journalism and history writings often lack is a sense of things on the ground: What’s it look like there? What’s it sound like? How do people think about what’s going on? To listen to the bureaucrats and rocks stars, Africa is one gigantic symptom in need of medicine that can only be provided by well, bureaucrats and rock stars. One of the benefits of reading blogs is to get a more accurate view of things apparently far removed from your immediate reality.”

Blogswana, which was granted non-profit status in December, is created with the goal of rehumanizing AIDS by putting a face with the reported statistics – by bringing “voices from the far side of the digital divide into the global conversation.”

Botswana, independent since 1966, says Schartz, is riddled with HIV/AIDS infection estimates that range from one in three to two in five.

“But not just about the disease. People are not merely vectors. It is our desire to create a rich, interesting site about the daily lives of Botswana,” said Schartz. “We would like to add to the public awareness and hopefully to help reduce the stigmatization of infected individuals.”

If the pilot is successful, Hopkins and Schartz hope to extend the program into other countries.

Tag: |

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

Add to DiggThis Yahoo My Web