Media's Embargo on "Harry's War" Sparks Debate

Reuters via Yahoo.news ^ | 2/29/2008 | Luke Baker

[wildbill]

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.

[wildbill]

Loose lips sink ships. I think the standard for media coverage in a war situation on famous people, political leaders and military leaders has always been to protect information about their location/presence in a war zone.

[LADY J]

Our MSM can't wait to blast out any military secrets they can plaster on the front page!!

Anything to make our military look bad is like a magnet for them.

[MNJohnnie]

Amazing how the same people who manufactured a “right to privacy” to rationalizes their position on abortion magically find a “people’s right to know” every single aspect of lives for the rich and politically connected.

The Polictical Left: The Hive of Hypocrisy.

[Steely Tom]

Sure, right. I'll get interested in this debate just as soon as I hear the concluding thoughts of the debate over whether it was a violation of "journalistic principles" (spit) for CNN's Baghdad bureau to act ad Saddam Hussein's mouthpiece in America, while turning a blind eye to mayhem and intimidation right on it's own doorstep.

[American in Israel]

The media has the same rights as citizens, and the same responsibilitys. To yell fire in a theator and call it freedom of the press is not freedom, it is anarchy.

It does not take an IQ larger than your shoe size to realize that giving out military information has a cost in blood. However some people are willing to traffic in blood for the price of a newspaper.

[muawiyah]

Should the media keep quiet about the specific assignments of junior military personnel?

Of course. And if they don't they should be hanged within a fortnight.

[acapesket]

It would be more appropriate if the “question” was..
Should the media leakers be shot at dawn or at sunset?

[muawiyah]

Why waste bullets when we have all those perfectly good surplus nooses.

[Dick Bachert]

Hope everyone who sees this thread rents a copy of “Harry’s War” (the movie) and watches it with a dozen friends.

[ChiefBoatswain]

Let's get this right. Having a "royal" in combat is a joke, and is dangerous. Rather than blaming the media for exposing this, we should thank them.

Here's why. Having a celebrity, whether it's a coddled member of the royal family or some Hollywood film star, is a distraction and a danger to the real troops who are there with a job to do.

Do you really think that "Harry" was an asset? Hardly. Without doubt, there were soldiers who were assigned to protect him, and had there been any real action, his powdered and perfumed butt would've been moved out of range to safety.

This was tantamount to a publicity stunt. Now this pampered, out of touch member of the "ruling" class can claim that he's a combat veteran. Give me a break.

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the troops that were there were the ones who let this little farce be known to the press to get this loser out of their area of operations. Speaking as a soldier, the last thing that we need in a dangerous situation is any kind of distraction, and Harry would've been the biggest g*dd*mn distraction of them all. I, for one, see this as a contemptible stunt. This time, at least, don't blame the press for doing the right thing.

[VaRepublican]

I could not disagree with you more. Think about it, I’ve got a 21 yr old in kuwait, he joined and probably could have got out if he really wanted to, previous injury with screws in ankle, but he hid it because he did not want to get out of contract. Alot of young folks serve and consider their word their bond, I did, and still do. This is not a “stunt” the boy is in Afghanistan, no stunt, he wants to serve and is mad that his fame is not allowing him to do what he was trained for.Look at how we bash famous folks on this web site deservedly so. I thank the young man for his service.

[bray]

They killed his Mom and now they wish they killed him.
Hip Hip Harry!

Pray for W and Prince Harry

[SuziQ]

Of course it was! NOT doing so would not only endangered Harry, but all of the men deployed with him. The Taliban would have stopped at nothing to get their hands on a Royal.

It didn't hurt the media one iota NOT reporting it, other than their pride.

[PGR88]

The MSM believe they have become a 4th arm of Government and that they are untouchable. Their supposition that it is their job to tell this news is childish.

[SuziQ]

Let's get this right. Having a "royal" in combat is a joke, and is dangerous.

If the enemy doesn't know who he is, or where he is, why is it dangerous? Remember, Harry is the 'spare', not the heir, and younger sons of the Royal Family have been doing this for years. Prince Andrew was deployed to the Falklands during that war. They went through the same training as all the other soldiers so, they're just as qualified.

Even the Queen herself, when she was a teenager, drove jeeps and trucks for the Army in Britain, because the Royal Family chose to stay in London, rather than flee to relative safety in the country. I believe that's why so many love the Royal Family today; because they didn't abandon London in its most desperate hour.

[Bender2]

There is a story I’ve heard a few times and not sure how much truth there is to it, but as it goes, not too long before the Invasion of Sicily, Eisenhower was giving a press briefing when one of the press hounds asked jokingly when the next Allied invasion would take place?

Ike thought for a moment, then started telling the gathered reporters all the details of the coming invasion of Sicily in the next few days. When he finished, the reporters were all open mouthed dumbfounded.

Finally, one asks why the General had given them all this Top Secret information?

You reporters, Ike replied, have it in your power to kill or maim thousands of Allied troops and give the Axis a strategic victory. “It is up to you,” he said and left the briefing room.

None of the reporters let the secret slip and the invasion was successful.

Now, I doubt that would work today as the MSM holds all our enemies in high regard and willingly gives them aid and comfort.

Yet, even if this story has some truth to it, I do recall Ike never did pull another stunt like this with the following invasions of Italy, Anzio, Normandy, etc.

[Bender2]

BTW yesterday I came across and heard Michale Savage on his radio program complimenting Prince Harry for doing his patriotic duty. Then he started bad mouthing all those in power in Washington as none of their kids are fighting in this war.

Granted, there are not many in DC that have any children in the armed services, but Michale Savage was purposely ignoring one.

I was hot to trot as John McCain’s youngest son, Jimmy, is in the Marines and if I recall correctly just returned from a deployment to Iraq.

I was a Fredhead and McCain is far from my favorite candidate, but I will support him over Billary or Obama.

And I suggest Michale Savage get his facts straight, but that is a losing battle. Michale Savage follows his own drumbeat whether it has any truth in it or not.

[Polybius]

GUARDIAN EXCLUSIVE, May, 13, 1944: “Invasion Site to be Normandy, Not Pas-de-Calais”

[wildbill]

Chief, I respectfully disagree.

From time immemorial the troops have been cheered by knowing their leader(s) were willing to be in the trenches or on the ships with them and exposed to the same dangers.

Call it propaganda or publicity stunt if you will, I haven’t heard any UK troops complaining. In fact, considering the somewhat low popularity of the English royals these days, I think Harry has been an inspirational reminder of the fighting royals of yesteryear.

As far as Harry being pampered, everything I’ve heard is that he chose the Army, took the normal training and fulfilled all the requirements to become a trooper.

I’d suspect the NCOs were just a little tougher on him in training to make sure he wasn’t a pampered ass that might get their troops killed.

[ChiefBoatswain]

VaR, give your son a HOOAH from me. My son-in-law is on his way for his 2nd tour later this year, so I (almost) know how you feel.

On that note, though, I don't see a parallel between your son and Harry. Your son serves proudly as one of the troops, but Harry can never be "one of the troops". Leaving the MSM out of this, do you really think that the bad guys wouldn't have found out about Harry eventually? Regardless, one of the things that the military avoids is unnecessary risk, and having a royal in their midst would represent an unnecessary risk.

He may be a Spare, but he is still a prize. I do agree that the "royals" gained a lot of points in WWII by staying in town during the blitz, but the situation is substantially different. (btw, both of my parents were in the Army in Britain at that time, so I'm familiar with the situation.) Like I've said, and you need to consider this, Harry represented a distraction and an unecessary risk. Do you think that he was treated the same as other troops? Not at all. You know that he was protected, and if even one additional soldier was assigned to protect him, then why was he there? And I can bet that there was more than one soldier watching out for him.

Then consider if he'd been snatched. What kind of concessions would be made to get him back? What would that propaganda be worth to the bad guys, and how much would it stoke their morale?

And just to be clear, I'd feel that way about any and all celebrities doing this.