Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Prince Harry, Drudged. What blow-back should we expect?

avatar

You must have seen the story - Prince Harry has been deployed in Afghanistan.

Until today. And the British military brass are mightily pissed off.

From what I can tell, a rumor about his deployment circulated on an Australian website in January, and then on a German site earlier this month. But because these weren't big names on the net, the media black-out held and the deployment remained unreported.

What changed it all was when Drudge headlined the story. At least that's what the BBC editors are saying. (this post from the BBC is also interesting in explaining why they agreed to self-censor)

At that point, the media and the British military accepted the game was up and the news broke.

I'll leave aside the media self-censorship question, though my personal view is that so long as the media entered into the arrangement voluntarily with the British government, that is their right and they did not break any inviolable code of journalism.

But what to make of Drudge? Why did he break this story? It's not like he needs to prove he's the Daddy of internet gossip, and it's not like this story is of particular importance to anyone. Of course the story is readily consumed because it involves the British Royal family, but is that the sole reason for Drudge's decision to publish?

To my mind, all the story did was prove that high profile individuals will be stopped from serving their country. By infotainment greedheads like Drudge. No-one will care about this story next week, but thanks to Drudge, Harry's career in the British Army - a very bright career by all accounts - has been compromised again.

I typically don't tend to feel sympathy for the biggest winners of the lucky sperm lotto, but Drudge has proven that there is nothing that the Prince Harrys of this world can do that will not be tabloidized. Self-sacrifice, courage, and service are ignorable commodities to the Drudge's of this world, and I can't think of anyone more deserving than Drudge of having vindictive campaign launched against him.

The Royal Family, lest it be forgotten, is pretty good at these as well, and right now Drudge is fair game. Whilst I would not expect the media here to start taking shots at the man who rules their world, and certainly not the rightwing blogosphere despite the way this story has dicked around the British Army, but it might be worth keeping an eye on the British press once the Royal Family's PR machine goes to work on the Eggman.


Comments (3)

Right-wingers should be pissed.

I wonder how they'll justify this? That Harry wasn't a serious part of the war effort anyway?

Why wouldn't Drudge print it? It's not like he had made an agreement with the British government.

Beyond that, it's a good thing Drudge printed it and freed the British media from an agreement they never should have made in the first place.

The British media gave the British government control over a story. They agreed to keep quiet while Harry was in country, in exchange for being able to tell the full story later. But what kind of story would they have told? Likely a jingoistic tale of the royal hero. They would have told the story that the British military had carefully engineered for them. It would have been propaganda.

I don't much like Matt Drudge but he ruined a military propaganda attempt. Perhaps inadvertently, but he did it and that's good.

First of all, if Drudge got the story, so could others who might have zeroed in on Harry's royal butt, so maybe they did him a favor.

Second of all, I don't think it was a big deal that the British press agreed to keep it quiet; so what? Why should they dutifully report a valuable target? "The right to know?" What happened to "all the news that's fit to print?"

What is wrong with sitting on a story for the right reasons -- the world did not need to know that Harry was serving in Afghanistan any more than we all need to know that Britney is in rehab again, but in Harry's case the reporting could actually endanger people.

What if the press found out that we know where BinLadin is and we're planning to take him out. They agree to keep mum and will get info later that they can publish. Is that censorship? No, it is good sense.

Frankly, I think the best response from the British Military would be to withdraw all their forces from Iraq. That would be the most productive message to send to the far-right war-lovers. And they should explain that Drudge is the reason for their departure. (BTW, that was not a typo--I meant Iraq rather than Afghanistan. Iraq is a neo-con indeavor and the multinational facade is just that. Afghanistan is a NATO effort and so withdrawing from there would not send the same message.)

The real down-side on this is that Bush will probably say next week that his daughters wanted to join up but knew they would be found out and it would endanger their "fellow soldiers," ...in fact I'm surprised he hasn't used that excuse for his AWOL time during Vietnam -- Oh, Right. He didn't need to. He got a complete pass on that; didn't even need an excuse!

Post a Comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



Nov. 30-Dec. 4



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address