In a new article, the
Chicago Tribune explores the "unusual degree of human decency" that the all forms of media exercised during the pre-release of
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
In the article entitled
What Would Harry Potter Do?, Patrick T. Reardon marvels at how strongly the media protected the secret of the final book before its release and even how it continued to protect the plot with *SPOILER* warnings in its articles and news pieces. Can journalists post-Potter phenomenon continue that respect of others, or will the ravenous media fall back into their get-the-story-at-all-costs attitude?
Quote:
Although copies of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" were in circulation in the days leading up to its official publication date of July 21, news organizations and individual bloggers, almost unanimously, refused to disclose details of the novel. They didn't reveal the ending. They didn't make public even the usual plot and character bits routinely mentioned in book reviews.
Quote:
Normally, journalists aren't so mushy. Normally, the argument that the public has a right to know anything and everything trumps all other considerations. Behind this argument isn't just 1st Amendment pieties. There's also a competitive imperative. The rush to be first with news doesn't leave much room for consideration of whether a particular revelation is the sort of news that the public must know.
Usually, it's not a fictional plot that gets revealed but the real-world details of someone's private life.
Quote:
Including a Harry Potter check on all stories can't be imposed from outside. It's something that each writer and editor, each news organization and blogger, will have to decide individually.
But, if, somehow, the nation's journalism community could be a tad more thoughtful about when something should be made public, it would be a change "for the greater good."
It would be magical.
For the full, very interesting article, go
here.