News priorities

THE death of Rupert Hamer represents something of a small landmark in our involvement in Afghanistan, as the Sunday Mirror’s defence correspondent becomes the first British journalist to die in the conflict.

In fact, it has been some time since the UK has lost a reporter in action. Perhaps that was one of the reasons that his death garnered so many headlines and led so many bulletins. Perhaps that’s why Prime Minister Gordon Brown was moved publicly to comment.

Nevertheless, as untimely and unfortunate as Hamer’s death was, it has been some time since the death of a British soldier in Afghanistan has received such media attention. Of course, military losses can lead – when five soldiers were killed in a day during Operation Panther’s Claw last summer, it was pretty big news.

However, let’s get a sense of perspective here. Certainly Hamer’s death should be noted, and certainly we should all mourn the passing of someone brave and dedicated enough to put their life on the line to accurately report on such a war. But readers, listeners and viewers are far more concerned with the deaths of soldiers. They are far more likely to know friends, relatives, sons and daughters of friends and relatives, who are serving in the armed forces. In journo parlance, this is classic “like us”. What anyone else might call “there for the grace of God…”

The media is also entitled to mark the death of one of its own, but it needs to view that in the context of public opinion towards this conflict. Disproportionate coverage will lead consumers to make up their own minds. It won’t help the media if those readers, listeners and viewers assume that it regards the war as a means to a reporting end. These are sensitive times, and demonstrating the requisite respect is expected.