What if the bin Laden announcement came just as Will & Kate said I do?
Raymond Snoddy wonders whether the US President was too busy on Friday watching the Royal Wedding to be bothered about matters such as Al Qaeda…
There is one large unanswered question about the shooting of Osama bin Laden. No not the one about whether like Elvis he is really dead or not.
The most intriguing issue is why President Obama – and you can see how broadcasters who got Jeremy Hunt’s name wrong could mix up the two men – authorised the attack on Saturday as opposed to any other day.
Could it be? Could it really be that the US President was too busy on Friday watching the Royal Wedding to be bothered about matters such as Al Qaeda. That could wait.
Naturally the President wanted to be able to watch the attack on Abbottabad live and the White House spin doctors must have wanted a clear run at a news story that could guarantee them all another four years of employment.
Spoilsports will point out that if you are going to try to kill a Muslim terrorist Fridays are not considered the most auspicious day anyway, if you want to avoid inflaming religious sensitivities more than absolutely necessary.
But what on earth would have happened if President Obama hadn’t given a fig for the Royal Wedding or the significance of Friday and made his announcement about the death of bin Laden just as William and Kate were saying they do?
Would Huw Edwards have cut into its live coverage from Westminster Abbey with the immortal words we are receiving news that… or would the little “Breaking News” banner have crept across the screen with the momentous information?
Nobody at Sky would have lost their jobs for ditching the wedding coverage in favour of a US triumph.
Alas we will never know and indeed we never could have because not even Section 6 of the Seals, the elite of the elite, would have thought it wise to attack in the late afternoon Pakistan time.
The very different events that came within a couple of days of each other do however raise common questions about the willingness of much of the media to become uncritical cheerleaders on behalf of the Royal Family and against the unmitigated evil of Osama bin Laden.
For most people and most media outlets the only proper response is three cheers for the wedding and the funeral: celebrations that the British monarchy has apparently managed to renew itself through charm and tradition one more time and that the inspiration of the 9/11 attacks in the US has finally been dealt with.
In both cases questions still hang in the air about the media performance that raise profound issues about the current state of democratic society.
You have to give top marks to all those involved in marketing the Royal Wedding. Superb job. Choreographed to within an inch of its life but beautiful sounds and sights.
Naturally television got all the right angles and it would be churlish to dwell on whether one presenter rather than another got the tone absolutely spot on.
In audience terms the rewards were high with a peak of 26 million viewers and the BBC scoring its usual points victory – 32.6% compared to ITV’s average share of 19.3%.
As for the two billion viewers worldwide. Up to a point. That usually means the coverage is available to around two billion, not necessarily the same as viewers.
Cheer-leading again.
The newspapers too will hope for an uplift in circulation from all those special wedding supplements with even The Independent, which has traditionally been sniffy about all matters Royal, producing 10 pages on the subject.
Leaving aside the actual ceremony itself, which many people who are no fans of Monarchy would want to see as spectacle, much of the coverage was fawning and irredeemably trivial.
Hours and hours devoted to nothing actually happening.
It was coverage largely in a time warp paying little attention to the vast changes that have occurred in British society since the last Premier League Royal wedding 30 years ago – ignoring particularly the end, or at least decline, of deference.
It was an event that was ring-fenced with normally tough journalists asking no questions, certainly not tough questions.
As for the Monarchy it is one of those rare occasions when it is possible to agree with Stephen Glover in The Independent.
The Royal spinners may indeed have unleashed “a monster”.
They have whipped up the media and the public into a frenzy and now they want the subjects of all this attention and mindless adoration to have privacy for the next two years.
Can’t be done mate. Not possible – you simply can’t have it both ways.
As for Bin Laden it’s also a case of questions not being asked. We have now, it seems, come to accept that bad guys can simply be taken out and merely admire the bravery and skill of those responsible.
After the initial fumble suggesting Bin Laden was a coward because he used his wife as a shield at the same time as firing back. We now know he was shot down in cold blood.
Maybe that was the right thing to do and almost certainly the practical thing to do.
But shouldn’t the question at least ask whether there are issues here to do with the rule of law?
After all difficult to imagine anyone more evil than the Nazis but they had trials at Nuremburg. Even Saddam had a trial.
In response to such musings Jon Williams, the BBC’s world editor, posted on Twitter that after 9/11 Al Qaeda were declared “military enemies” by Congress and therefore not protected by the 1976 ban on targeted killings.
All true of course but is it not necessary to keep asking questions about the use of torture, murder by drone and execution by special-forces and whether such anti-terrorist methods are legal under international law and might just be counter-productive?
It’s what journalists are supposed to do and perhaps more searching questions should be asked about the triumphalism involved in both reporting Royal weddings and a significant victory over Islamic terror.