Following on from yesterday's ramble about Barclays I wanted to follow this with another example of something that I think was covered in a bad way by the collective media.
Apparently is widely known amongst key military analysts and army insiders that the British Army is planning to withdraw from a certain base it currently occupies in Iraq. Now Iraq is a sensitive subject and we have lost far too many soldiers already without the media giving our enemies out there a potential opportunity.
A few of the media reported on activities around this base last week and were even speculating when the army may be withdrawing, along with highlighting that the forces were not wanting to see images of a fighting withdrawal from the base.
"He is from a British Newspaper - can I take the shot... over"
With that in mind, why cover the story? Let the army carry on and cover the event after, or as it happens if it is necessary.
I thought at first that the story may have been leaked by the army themselves as a diversion tactic but the outcry from the army that followed the stories being printed tells me otherwise.
I am all for free media and alike and would never suggest censorship but there is a real need for the media themselves to look at stories like this and ask what the consequence are of running a story of this nature.
End of my media wobble.