NPR: Harry Potter Makes Journalists Do Strange Things

Harry Potter Makes Journalists Do Strange Things

One of the first things I learned in journalism was that the public had a right to know what was going on. The moment you got news and had it confirmed, you printed it. And that was true whether the story was about the president or your mother.

So how come Harry Potter got so many breaks? I mean, newspapers and broadcasters have gone out of their way for weeks not to let people know what happens at the end of the seventh and final book, even when copies made their way to the public before the official publishing date. There were more spoilers on articles than on cars at the Daytona 500.

In a very interesting piece, Patrick Reardon of the Chicago Tribune writes that maybe that was a good thing. That the decency that journalists showed to a fictional boy should also be shown to other people. That maybe all the news isn't fit to print, and we need to be a little more discerning.

Reardon wonders if we really need to know so much about Elizabeth Edwards' battle with cancer, or anything at all about the blonde woman seen recently with New York Yankees' slugger Alex Rodriguez.

Do people in the public eye deserve to be treated with Potter-like care? Would that kind of journalistic discretion make the country a more civil place or just encourage some people to try and get away with behavior the public might deem unfit?

3:23 PM ET | 08-13-2007 | permalink

Comments (Send a comment)

Sir, You've missed the point of the silence on Harry Potter. It is not because of a fictional character's privacy rights, but is not to ruin for the million plus readers the ending of an enchanting tale that has enthralled readers for almost ten years.

Sent by Maloney | 3:33 PM ET | 08-13-2007

If journalists stopped reporting about Paris Hilton, there would be one of two outcomes: 1) journalists would actually begin reporting the news, complete with facts and other inconveniences that we need to know, or 2) journalists would be out of a job.

Considering the profit motives of news corporations, I fear that it would be the latter. Here's to job security for journalists, and to reading more about Paris Hilton.

Sent by brainscan | 4:19 PM ET | 08-13-2007

Cynicism aside, perhaps this extraordinary reserve has to do with the simple fact that the expectations and fascinations of children (including the children of broadcasters and journalists) are at stake. Even if children don't read newspapers, it permeates their world just the same as for adults. Like publishing articles on the myth of Santa Claus the week before Christmas, spoiling the final Harry Potter for an enitre generation of children would be a heinous act for any publisher to undertake, and likely for no long-term benefit or short-term profit. The notoriety of grinchness is simply to great a risk. Thank goodness.

Sent by Rachel Monaco-Wilcox | 5:15 PM ET | 08-13-2007

I have long held that much of the "news" is simply an effort to fill airwaves, or newsprint, with whatever can be found, whether or not "newsworthy." I don't think the story-line in a fictional piece is newsworthy, on any level, so treating it with "care" shouldn't be a concern. Yes, people in the public eye are entitled to some privacy. If it could actually be had, perhaps more truly competent people will enter the public arena and we'd all benefit.

Sent by Leah Lawrence | 5:17 PM ET | 08-13-2007

To fully enjoy the final book of an amazing septology, and not hear or read about the ending, Ihad to isolate myself for three days. NPR anounced that they would be "Harry Potter spoiler free", and I applaud you for that consideration.

Sent by Sara | 2:02 AM ET | 08-14-2007

First point: Harry. Being a long time Harry fan I to avoided the media for the weeks leading up to the books release, and until I finished the book. I was happy to see Shock jocks and media whores were not trying to reveal every twist and turn like they did with the last book.

On the point of the media... you gotta be kidding me. The media's agenda is to distract the American public from what is really happening in the world. If you look at the biggest stories of the year, Paris in jail, Mike Vic, and the others that I didn't pay attention to, they directly paralleled the real news of the day they didn't report on. The hotter it was getting on the political front the more attention they gave the "Paris" stories.

The White House doesn't want you to know the real news of what is going on in Iraq, the war profiteering by Halliburton, and does anyone know who, or what Blackwater is? It is a private army that is paying mercenaries over 600 dollars a day to "protect" our US officials in Iraq. They are under contract by our own government to do this. This is the same government that can't pay our real armed forces a decent wage, or take care of them when they are injured in the line of duty. Twenty years ago this would have been huge news, but now all we get is minute to minute coverage of Paris's stay in jail.

Forget Paris, let's take a stroll in the Blackwater of our government and talk about the "news" news. Leave the distractions for the "fair and balanced" reporting from Fox News.

Sent by Dave | 7:53 AM ET | 08-14-2007

There used to be a day in journalism that it wasnt reported about the revolving door in the JFK bedroom, the sexual orientation of Rock Hudson and (gasp) Liberace. There were more important things to report about and it also happened that at that time the news divisions were the big profit centers for the networks (all THREE of them). Sadly, times have changed and now we all know when Brittany is not wearing underwear.

Sent by tim | 12:52 PM ET | 08-14-2007

Send a Comment

Comments are reviewed and edited by NPR prior to display. All comments will be read, but not all will be posted.

NPR reserves the right to read on the air and/or publish on its Web site or in any medium now known or unknown the e-mails and letters that we receive. We may edit them for clarity or brevity and identify authors by name and location. For additional information, please consult our Terms of Use.

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
May we contact you with information about NPR programming and services? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.