In the Navy

Predictably, following the release of the 15 Navy personnel from Iran last week, a row has erupted over the selling of stories. In every way, the media gains because by publishing the "exclusive" stories it both ignites the row, and then it gets to fan the flames further by reporting on the row which has followed.

Without wanting to belittle what was almost certainly an unpleasant ordeal, is it insensitive to say that while I am really not interested personally in the "stories" being sold, I am equally not surprised to hear that the media is? In a week when, to be honest, there seemed little other news about, papers such as The Sun were probably glad to have something to cover. To be frank though, this was not the same as being captured by Iraqi terrorists and held in a place unknown under constant threat of death. These navy personnel were captured by the Iranian government. Everyone knew who the captors were, and consequently there was surely never any doubt that they would eventually be released. That being the case, it is churlish to make comparisons with the predicament of hostages held in Iraq.

Furthermore, they were held only for 2 weeks, during which time they did... well, apparently not very much. Kept in unpleasant surroundings yes, but where is the story worth covering?

The issue of whether, and how, they ended up in 'unauthorised' waters seems to have now fallen away in favour of discussion on whether they should be entitled to sell their stories for profit. But ultimately, does it really matter? If they weren't speaking to the papers or appearing with Trevor Macdonald, there would surely be books released soon enough (and this may still happen, though I say again that with only 2 weeks in captivity would there be enough material to make a book interesting?).

My own view is that the press coverage this week is simply par for the course, and the closest thing that the narrowminded tabloid media have been able to come in recent years to being able to interview a hostage held in the Middle East during a period of war (Iran, Iraq, what's the difference?) who has come out of the experience alive. But they have failed to make the distinction that the experience of these Navy personnel is far less of a story than would be the case for an Iraqi hostage who had been released after weeks of captivity. If Ken Bigley had been released, would he have been criticised for selling his story to the newspapers? I suspect not.

Maybe the personnel involved get some financial gain out of it (not unreasonable if they were in fact in unauthorised waters and captured as the result of someone else's mistaken orders). Let them have their 5 mins of fame. But I wonder whether those who bought the papers and read the 'stories' actually found much worth reading.