The Brit press is acting with faux outrage because Matt Drudge disclosed that Prince Harry has been serving with the British Army in Helmond Province, Afghanistan.
First I'd like to say that I respect the fact that Harry has taken on the assignment and is serving in the War on Terror. He should be commended and took on the assignment knowing full-well that it would cause chaos within his unit in particular and the Army as a whole. He's a grunt, and officer grunt but a grunt just the same living in military conditions with infrequent showers and tents full of sand.
Now for the Brit media, they are worked up because Drudge got the story and broke it first. They made an extraordinary agreement to keep it secret until the Prince was safely out of harms way and the minute Drudge posted, they ran with it in force.
Now we don't have royalty because we hate royalty but we do have powerful legislators. I can think of at least two who've sent their sons into battle--Duncan Hunter and John McCain--while not protecting them from the media. John McCain is potentially the next Most Powerful Man in the World, what kind of ransom would al-Qaeda in Iraq work out for his son were he captured and detained or what type of media coup would they gain if they hurt him on camera?
Spare me the outrage of the Brit press, Drudge came by the story legitimately and ran with it. He was not in on any agreement so he was not beholden to the Prince or anyone else. I say good for Matt as it hasn't exactly been the British press--especially the Guardian--who has cut us any breaks running Abu Ghraib pictures like porn or trying to exacerbate any small little issue to make us look like the bad guys.
Update: Dan notes that an Aussie mag was the first to mention it but it wasn't noticed internationally. Also, many typos fixed, posted without having coffee, a bad combination.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Matt Drudge & Prince Harry
Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
In Australia, we heard that a local (older) women's magazine, "New Idea" first broke the story but it was only when Drudge mentioned it that it really took off.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/oops/2008/02/29/1204226933855.html
New Idea now deny everything.
Drudge's article makes the lives of soldiers, who are already in danger, even more dangerous and all you can say is that Drudge "saw a story and ran with it".
That tells us a lot more about you and your chum Drudge than it does about the britpress.
In any other walk of life we are accountable for our actions. Why is this not the case for journalists/bloggers?
Imagine if a politician or corporate exec was seen to be compromising the safety of individuals for commercial gain. Drudge would be the first to vilify them but, such is the hypocrisy of the media, that he does nto apply the same standards to his own behaviour.
It saddens me that Drudge is completely unaccountable for his actions, and fools like you are oblivious to the danger that he has created.
Alan,
You are so wrong it's laughable. drudge reporting on Prince William did not put any troops in danger, the media reporting on Abu Ghraib did.
The Abu Gharaib incident was a few soldiers who went power hungry and the media used it as an indictment of every person serving in uniform.
The result of that was a stepped-up insurgency and the death of more Americans.
Spare me your moral outrage about Drudge and take a look back at how, less than a week into the Afghanistan campaign they called it a "quagmire" and "another Vietnam" when we were winning it.
Go back inside your little hole and do some research on what the Drudge story means and what the thousands of anti-troop stories did to morale and to incite jihadism. It may be an enlightening experience.
Post a Comment