Why are news organizations questioning the Prince Harry secret?

Stylerod · 02-29-2008, 09:54 AM

Media's embargo on "Harry's war" sparks debate

LONDON (Reuters) - Now the world knows Prince Harry is in Afghanistan, the question on many lips is whether it was right for the media to keep quiet about it for so long.
(Advertisement)

Journalists are accustomed to embargoes -- almost every day newspapers, newswires, radio and TV stations agree with governments, central banks and companies to release information only at a specific time to make it available to all at once.

In the case of Prince Harry's frontline role in Afghanistan, the embargo just went on for a lot longer than normal -- in the end, for a surprisingly enduring 10 weeks.

In a series of meetings at the Ministry of Defence late last year, British media and selected international outlets agreed not to report Harry's deployment in exchange for getting regular pictures, video and text of his day-to-day activities once the planned four-month assignment was completed.

__________________________________________

In the hours since the story broke, commentators -- even some whose own organisations signed up to the deal -- have questioned whether it was right.

Jon Snow, the presenter of television's Channel 4 news, wrote in his blog that the affair could be damaging for media credibility.

"One wonders whether viewers, readers and listeners will ever want to trust media bosses again," he wrote. On BBC radio on Friday he questioned whether more time and effort hadn't been spent covering the "Harry story" than the more important issues about exactly what is going on in the Afghanistan conflict.

Tessa Mayes, a media commentator at Spiked Online, accused the media of doing special deals with the royals, that might have been okay when they were young, but were not acceptable now.

"They are not children now, they are adults, and we should not be doing backroom deals with royalty," she told Sky TV.

"The role of the reporter is not to become the informational wing of the military, it's to have a degree of independence."

Reuters, like other major news outlets, agreed to the embargo, seeing it as similar to those frequently agreed on news stories, even if the details were more complex this time. Before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, a similar-style embargo was maintained on the timing of the invasion.

The whole article:
Media's embargo on "Harry's war" sparks debate - Yahoo! News UK

This seems to be as simple as it gets. It was not not put them into any more danger than they already are.

Harry is a soldier and wanted to lead his troops in the war. Him being there puts a HUGE target on his and his company's heads. If it was broadcast every Mohamed, Hussein and Aazad within 3 countries from there that owned a Kalashnikov would have been gunning for them.

The press are so fucking arrogant sometimes.

JaJae · 02-29-2008, 09:58 AM

I was pretty pissed when Drudge broke Prince Harry's involvement overseas. He might as well have painted a huge bullseye on his head and put everyone around him in danger.

They've finally decided to bring him home due to the media debacle.
Prince Harry in Afghanistan | Prince Harry fights Taliban with British forces in Afghanistan's Helmand Province | The Sun |HomePage|News

But top brass have accepted Taliban fighters will now be doing their all to find him.

And Harry has agreed that he will leave the war torn country within the next 72-hours for a flight home to the UK.

7960 · 02-29-2008, 10:01 AM

Reporters usually operate under the "If it's news it should be printed" rule. To them this is news so they think it should be printed.

Btw, THIS is exactly what kennedy's "secret societies" speech was about.

"This nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire . . . The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning . . . But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security . .. Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: 'Is it news?' All I suggest is that you add the question: 'Is it in the interest of national security?' "

The Meaning of Freedom - TIME

WickedLou9 · 02-29-2008, 10:04 AM

I dunno, If him being there posed a threat, he shouldn't have been there in the first place and maybe the people of England deserved to know that one of thier royal family was in harms way so that they may question the powers that be on thier decision to sent him to war.

Stylerod · 02-29-2008, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I dunno, If him being there posed a threat, he shouldn't have been there in the first place and maybe the people of England deserved to know that one of thier royal family was in harms way so that they may question the powers that be on thier decision to sent him to war.

Every soldier being there is in harms way. Are you arguing against him being in Afghanistan?

7960 · 02-29-2008, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I dunno, If him being there posed a threat, he shouldn't have been there in the first place and maybe the people of England deserved to know that one of thier royal family was in harms way so that they may question the powers that be on thier decision to sent him to war.

The queen sent him and he should have gone. The news shouldn't have printed the story.

Again............"Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: 'Is it news?' All I suggest is that you add the question: 'Is it in the interest of national security?"

Replace "national security" with "a person's security" and it's the exact same. Should a newspaper have printed the location of Salmon Rushdie if they knew it?

WickedLou9 · 02-29-2008, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Every soldier being there is in harms way. Are you arguing against him being in Afghanistan?

It's not the same at all. The prince of england is not the same as any other soldier.

WickedLou9 · 02-29-2008, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

The queen sent him and he should have gone. The news shouldn't have printed the story.

Again............"Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: 'Is it news?' All I suggest is that you add the question: 'Is it in the interest of national security?"

Replace "national security" with "a person's security" and it's the exact same. Should a newspaper have printed the location of Salmon Rushdie if they knew it?

I just don't agree in this case. If you want to talk about broadcasting specifc battle plans, troop movements, locations that troops are going to strike in the immediate future, sure that's actually treason.

BUt simply saying that the prince of england is fighting somewhere in the country isn't giving away specific military plans or strategy. If President Bush had a son and they sent him off to fight in Iraq, I would want our papers to report on it so that We could voice our concerns about how stupid it is and how his very presence in Iraq would pose a national security threat. WHat if he got captured? They could hold him for ransom and put the entire country in a predicament where we might have to risk many many other lives to rescue him or pay large sums of money to free him, giving a huge boost to terrorists. If the queen makes a stupid decisioon like sending Prince Harry to fight in Afghanastan, the public should be aware of it.

avsp · 02-29-2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I dunno, If him being there posed a threat, he shouldn't have been there in the first place and maybe the people of England deserved to know that one of thier royal family was in harms way so that they may question the powers that be on thier decision to sent him to war.

Firstly & pickily its Britain not England.

& also its the other way round. It does the cred of the royals much good that he serves.

Suppose he hadnt been outed & had survived his term would his involvement have remained a secret? I very much doubt it even if deals hadnt been reach with the press. It was bound to leak anyway as ppl would be asking where their regular 'Harry seen in pub shocker (more grainy camphone pics inside)' tabloid headlines had gone

During the Falklands war his uncle served flying chaff missions in helicopters which is very dangerous, several crashed whilst doing it. The popularity of the royals rose enormously.

The difference was that his precence on the fleet didnt increase the risk for any particular unit simply because of the circumstances. Whereas Harry, once outed, would definately be a bullet magnet for his Ghurka colleagues if he hadnt been pulled out.

The press is guilty of colusion but when isnt it? Its got f*ck all to do with national security & much more to do with individual liberty

Cliffs: its special treatment to enable pro-royal propaganda. OTOH why shouldnt he be able to serve?

WickedLou9 · 02-29-2008, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by avsp

Firstly & pickily its Britain not England.

& also its the other way round. It does the cred of the royals much good that he serves.

Suppose he hadnt been outed & had survived his term would his involvement have remained a secret? I very much doubt it even if deals hadnt been reach with the press. It was bound to leak anyway as ppl would be asking where their regular 'Harry seen in pub shocker (more grainy camphone pics inside)' tabloid headlines had gone

During the Falklands war his uncle served flying chaff missions in helicopters which is very dangerous, several crashed whilst doing it. The popularity of the royals rose enormously.

The difference was that his precence on the fleet didnt increase the risk for any particular unit simply because of the circumstances. Whereas Harry, once outed, would definately be a bullet magnet for his Ghurka colleagues if he hadnt been pulled out.

The press is guilty of colusion but when isnt it? Its got f*ck all to do with national security & much more to do with individual liberty

Cliffs: its special treatment to enable pro-royal propaganda. OTOH why shouldnt he be able to serve?

Yes I understand the honor of serving and that it's a matter of pride for the royal family, but what if his unit got captured and he was held hostage by the Taliban? They would certainly find out very quickly who they were holding... Is your national interest really served at all by him being there?

JaJae · 02-29-2008, 10:41 AM

I have to agree with asvp here. If the Prince is willing to serve he should be able to do so without a huge bullseye on the back of his head. Not only has the media given away the fact that he's over there, but they've given away his exact location. That's incredibly foolish and puts the Prince and everyone around him in unnecessary danger.

WickedLou9 · 02-29-2008, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I have to agree with asvp here. If the Prince is willing to serve he should be able to do so without a huge bullseye on the back of his head. Not only has the media given away the fact that he's over there, but they've given away his exact location. That's incredibly foolish and puts the Prince and everyone around him in unnecessary danger.

I don't think that the public should ever be kept in the dark of the decisions that thier leaders are making. The national interest is never served by doing so. Government should be transparent. If Norman Nobody goes to Afghanastan, it doesn't matter and the fact that he is there doesn't place the country in harms way. If we are sending troops to fight in a foreign country , the public needs to know because of the repercussions. If you send a member of the royal family to fight on the front lines, that poses a significant risk to the country. I don't care if it's a matter of pride for the royal family, pride does not outweigh the risk posed by his mere presence. If he were to be captured, many many other lives would have to be risked to save him. For what? What is gained? Pride? I might say Hubris.

7960 · 02-29-2008, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I just don't agree in this case. If you want to talk about broadcasting specifc battle plans, troop movements, locations that troops are going to strike in the immediate future, sure that's actually treason.

Obviously.

BUt simply saying that the prince of england is fighting somewhere in the country isn't giving away specific military plans or strategy. If President Bush had a son and they sent him off to fight in Iraq, I would want our papers to report on it so that We could voice our concerns about how stupid it is and how his very presence in Iraq would pose a national security threat. WHat if he got captured? They could hold him for ransom and put the entire country in a predicament where we might have to risk many many other lives to rescue him or pay large sums of money to free him, giving a huge boost to terrorists. If the queen makes a stupid decisioon like sending Prince Harry to fight in Afghanastan, the public should be aware of it.

Exactly how would anyone know who he was if it wasn't reported? Harry or a president's kid.....he's just another guy until someone points a big arrow at him and says "GUESS WHO?!?!?!"

And why would we do anything different for a president's kid than for any other soldier captured? McCain was the son of an admiral, commander in chief for the navy in europe............sure it's not president, but you think he didn't have some clout? How many men were killed and how much money was paid to free his son?

7960 · 02-29-2008, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think that the public should ever be kept in the dark of the decisions that thier leaders are making.

What?

If we are sending troops to fight in a foreign country , the public needs to know because of the repercussions. If you send a member of the royal family to fight on the front lines, that poses a significant risk to the country.

Only if the opposition knows.

I don't care if it's a matter of pride for the royal family, pride does not outweigh the risk posed by his mere presence. If he were to be captured, many many other lives would have to be risked to save him.

Why do you keep saying this? How many lives are risked to save captured prisoners? The answer is "no more than need be risked for anyone else."

WickedLou9 · 02-29-2008, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by 7960

Obviously.

Exactly how would anyone know who he was if it wasn't reported? Harry or a president's kid.....he's just another guy until someone points a big arrow at him and says "GUESS WHO?!?!?!"

And why would we do anything different for a president's kid than for any other soldier captured? McCain was the son of an admiral, commander in chief for the navy in europe............sure it's not president, but you think he didn't have some clout? How many men were killed and how much money was paid to free his son?

Prince Harry is a well known public figure. If he was captured someone would recognize him eventually.

If you are talking about the son of a president or the son of the Royal Family, yes they would take extraordinary means above and beyond what they would do for an "ordinary" soldier. You can bet your life they would.

7960 · 02-29-2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Prince Harry is a well known public figure. If he was captured someone would recognize him eventually.

We all look alike to them.

Also, is anyone who looks like Harry in danger when captured? If one of them "recognizes" him (even if it's someone who just looks like him) then why would they believe him when he says he's not Harry?

If you are talking about the son of a president or the son of the Royal Family, yes they would take extraordinary means above and beyond what they would do for an "ordinary" soldier. You can bet your life they would.

I'm not so sure. For starters, how could they justify "extraordinary measures" to save their child when extraordinary measures aren't used to save every captured soldier?

Stylerod · 02-29-2008, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think that the public should ever be kept in the dark of the decisions that thier leaders are making.

You can not mean this in the way that I am reading it. You just can't.

WickedLou9 · 02-29-2008, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

You can not mean this in the way that I am reading it. You just can't.

I don't mean specific military strategy or anything like that. The country should be aware of decisions being made by thier leaders that effect them. If my leader is going to go to war with another country, we should know about it. If they are going to raise taxes, we should know. If they are going to pass a law, we should know. If they are going to send troops to Bosnia, we should know. I don't want any secret laws, secret policies, secret decisions that only exist to consolidate power. IE, the Secret " Terrorist Surveilance Program". That was a secret program that our government started that everyone had a problem with once the press leaked information about it's existance. If not for the press we would never have known. If we are doing something that, if it became public, would put the nation at risk.. maybe we shouldn't be doing it in the first place?