Prince Harry, Afghanistan and the media blackout

[Amanda]

So as we all know now, Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, has been serving in Afghanistan.

The story had been hidden through a rare (and to my mind honourable) deal with the British media to not report the story until Harry returned, so as to not put his life and that of the others in his unit at risk. However, the story was broken by an Australian magazine and then more widely by Us 'news' blogger Matt Drudge on the Drudge Report.

Now Harry has to return home and moreover, there is a lot of hand-wringing about whether the media should have struck a 'deal' with the establishment. Columnist Mark Sweney in the Guardian's Organ Grinder questions whether the British media did the right thing.

I am interested in hearing your opinions on this - should they have made such a deal? Does that set a bad precedent for the future to hide stories the establishment doesn't want heard? Should news trump all? Was Matt Drudge right to publish the story?

My opinion: Of COURSE they were right to bloody well hide the story! I am enraged at the arrogance and cruelty of Matt Drudge and the Australian magazine which is now saying 'oops, we didn't know- really!' as if anyone buys that.

Did they think they were really so slick that they were ahead of the rabid British press and knew something they didn't? Come on... the BRITISH press? The home of tabloid journalism, reality-tv and 'inna your face' journalism? And if the story had not been reported, did it not occur to them that there might be a good reason? And even if that did not occur to them, do they expect me to believe that they did not think there was something immoral and wrong about publishing this story and putting the lives of not just Prince Harry but all of the other soldiers in his unit at risk?

That is what angers me. It is not like the deal was struck just to protect one royal (as some commenters have been suggesting). It was also to protect others in his unit, who would be at increased risk of attack if it was known that the Prince of England was serving in Afghanistan. Can you imagine what a coup it would be for some suicide bomber or terrorist to take out the Prince? A lot of the power of Islamic extremism comes from symbolism. Like Iraq - Iraq was pretty liberal for an Islamic country, but the symbolish of Western powers attacking a country of Islamic people, has been a massive boost for terror recruiters.

Similarly taking out someone as symbolic as the prince of one of said Western countries would be huge. As we have seen before, not all terrorists are smart- at least, not the ones who actually carry out the attacks. In fact, many are quite young and ignorant and easily manipulated and may well not understand that the Royal Family are only titular and symbolic heads of the state and may well think that something could be achieved by harming or kidnapping the Prince of England.

Journalists who should know better understood all this and went ahead anyway - for no greater purpose than the 'glory' of a scoop. Make no doubt, it was about nothing more than the glory, for there was no greater good to be accomplished from publishing this story. What could be achieved by this except a spike in readership?

They are disgusting.

[Kim J Young]

Well Amanda,

As a journalist and a Brit, I obviously support the establishment in denying the press the right to know the whereabouts of the Prince and thus put him and his unit in harm's way.

Called "the bullet target", Prince Harry is would have had as much protection as is humanly possible from the MI6 but that is not enough. The Palace has the right to refuse to disclose the whereabouts of Prince Harry because it puts ALL British troops (who should not be there in the first place, but that is another story) , in peril.

Thank God , only about 200 British soldiers have died but that is 200 too many.

News does not trump all and this is why I have always been ranting about self-censorship. The almighty "scoop" is not all. What if Prince Harry was targeted and blown to Smithereeens that very day. Journalist are indeed to deliver news to the hungry public but they are also to do so with a duty of care (not legally , but one never knows) so that one does not put one's national security nor one's newspaper, nor one's heir to the throne or the average Joe in harm's way.

The bloggers and over zealous journalists have taken a free license to just write what they like, do as they please and do so without taking into consideration the gravitas of the situation. As you said for "a spike in readership" but at what cost? The cost of the life of a young Prince?

We, in the media, must, as a matter of ethics, practice journalistic self governance and self-censorship, in the name of what is right and appropriate. The scoop will do nothing and his "dream" of serving his country now comes to an abrupt end. I have seen too many journalist trying to "out scoop" each other only to have to retract what they wrote, apologise, get fired or somehow pay the price for their stupidity.

They should be ashamed of themselves and as one educated in Britain, you would know that while we may not agree with the monarchy or fancy the monarchy, at the end of the day, Prince Harry is still an heir to the throne and as such the monarchy which no longer rules but reigns, is deserving of the highest respect.