Harry of the Hindu Kush

A defence* of Royalty: Prince Harry in Afghanistan. Oddly stirring stuff, actually.

Good for him and, amazingly, good for the MoD and the media for ensuring that the Prince's comrades were not endangered by his presence on the front line becoming a matter of public knowledge until now.

UPDATE: Fraser says some of the most prominent British bloggers knew of Harry's deployment and kept the news to themselves too. This ain't a new media vs old media tussle, it's common sense and, in this instance, a certain courtesy to a young soldier who wants to serve his country without imperiling his comrades. Nothing significant is gained by "breaking" an agreed embargo on this sort of thing and nothing lost by honouring it until such point as it expires or, as in this case, becomes moot.

UPDATE 2: Trusty, credible commenter Beth Noire, suggests gossip site Popbitch knew in December and scrubbed all references to Harry's service from its chatroom.

*Spelling corrected to scrub accidental Americanism. Thanks Panenka.

Comments

[dearieme]

Careful, now. Do you mean American "moot" or British?

[Mr Eugenides]

"Oddly stirring" captures it rather well. It could transform his public image as well - not, ultimately, that it really matters, I suppose.

I don't know if Fraser is correct in his assumption - but I think that as the secret moved down the blogging food chain, someone certainly would have published. The prospect of a million hits in a day would be too great to resist.

[Panenka'sChip]

'defense'?

You were clearly in the 'States for too long..

[beth noire]

Eds at Popbitch knew about before the end of 2007, kept it quiet and removed any refs from their chatroom. This was less for Harry's sake, more the sake of the Tommies working with him.

[Andrew]

Alex: Surprised this hasn't generated more comments... I would say that I think Jon Snow's comments about the 'conspiracy of silence' were almost as ludicrous as Drudge's general modus operandi. Maybe the majority of the media honored the request for silence because they have more respect for a public figure's actual military service instead of their more usual kowtowing to a president who can't prove that he actually ever showed up for his?

[Mark]

Hmmm, let's see the NYT holds a story and then runs it and Conservatives go bonkers. Drudge reports a story and the self-congratulatory media blames him for it being leaked even though it was out for months before, and the Conservatives go bonkers.

No one here is upset that several left-leaning anti-American news outlets censored the news at the behest of Government? Are you daft? Patting yourselves on the back for doing the bidding of the Crown? No one is concerned that outlets who profess to run news no matter what suddenly are quiet even though they routinely leak sensitive, classified, secret documents and programs? You are upset that Drudge reported this? Wake up!

The lefties are having a field day with this. They are shouting at Drudge for "puttin him in harms way" -- because all thinking folks know that he was safe until then -- don't be stupid, he is at the front, it's not safe. The left is getting back at Drudge and the right is sharpening the knives for them. Once again the left shows it's hypocrisy and the right sticks it's head in the guilliotine.

Next time you want to bitch about a story being not reported, DON'T.

[Mark]

Oh Andrew, the majority of the media held off because they were given special access to the Prince. No doubt the MOD and Crown figured the press would be positive over this, and the played the press like a fiddle.

I would guess that few who knew did not report it for fear -- rightly so it appears -- of being attacked by deranged loons, that or the live in the Kingdom and feel a responsibility to obey the Crown. I would also guess that many who say they knew, didn't.

The best thing about this whole episode is that it points out the hypocrisy of the left.

[Andrew]

Mark: Still picking through all your comments and not sure where to start. Can't quite figure out if you think I'm one of the 'deranged loons' or not. However much one might deride the journalist involved, the analogy that comes to my mind is Geraldo being relocated after reporting troop positions in Iraq. Front lines aren't safe, but in wartime journalists have access to knowledge -- which whether by law or consensus -- that can further jeopardize soldiers in the field. The other particular analogy I would make was that my grandfather spoke of King George VI coming to inspect the air-craft carrier he served on during WW2 -- but that he was never entirely sure whether it was the actual king or his double. I am under no illusion as to how transparent our society is, nor naive enough to imagine that the press (left, right or wherever)suffered because of the way in which they were asked to handle this particular incident.