The Times of London reports on Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan and subsequent return to England after the media broke the story of his whereabouts. In today's lead article, The Times opens with the response of the Taliban, quoting an insurgent general, before continuing to offer viewpoints from the British Army on the decision to withdraw Prince Harry from Afghanistan. The insurgent general draws attention to the significance of the Prince's presence as a sign of the royal family's support for the war. The article does not turn to the Prince's own opinion until the conclusion.
This offers an interesting perspective. The use of the Taliban quote first is an attempt to convey an alternate viewpoint, something that the Mermin reading proved is not usually done in covering international conflicts. Of course, it is also the most newsworthy part of the story. The focus of the story is on diplomacy or the international effect of the Prince's presence in the armed forces in Afghanistan. A second story goes into a more celebrity-motivated account of the Prince's actual duties and how his unit kept the secret of his identity for ten weeks. This separation of diplomacy and celebrity shows a respect for the incident as an international news story, rather than more gossip about the royals.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment