Shameless Slimeball of the Millennium

Shaun - I totally agree with you. Has the public been any less well-served by not knowing where Harry has been? Why Drudge couldn't wait, except to get this attention makes me feel pangs of ick the way I do about Ann Coulter - just a simple, "Why?" why why why - because it is all about them.

Again - it is so not news we need to survive. Why he felt so obligated, I will never understand. Is there in fact anything out from him that explain why he revealed the info? (I'm not a regular reader of his at all - for obvious reasons lol)

Jillmz:

The really awful thing about Drudge blowing Harry's cover, as I well know from being around a war or three myself and having been obligated to keep a secret or three myself, is that it exposed his fellow troopers to increased risk. One thing that war correspondents NEVER do -- their cardinal rule, as it were -- is to make public information regarding sensitive troop locations.

Drudge blew that rule because he is a self-aggrandizing, amoral, conscience-free weasel for whom getting attention -- which is to say getting paid -- is always paramount.

At first I was willing to join in bashing Drudge, but I never really cared for his site anyways. Then I thought, well, the Prince made the choice going into combat knowing full well the complications it would cause for those around him. I appreciate his sentiment and actions in putting himself on the line when as far as I can tell not many of our leaders have done so. Also, I find it hard to believe even with the added danger those serving alongside the Prince don't find it an honor. These are professional volunteer soldiers after all.

Basically, I think its no big deal.

Shaun, I have mixed feelings about this... Media silence is a judgment call, but not an obligation. As Jon Williams wrote in the link you provided:

"In truth, the surprise is that the agreement lasted so long. We - and the other UK broadcasters - were clear that we would not report his deployment. But nor would we deceive our audiences."

This is not to say that I don't think there are times and places the media should keep quiet. If you're embedded or otherwise given access to a situation you wouldn't be able to have without permission, you're obligated to not draw troop movements in the sand on TV in exchange for the privilege of such access.

But that wasn't the case here. Should Drudge have kept his claptrap shut? Sure. But it wasn't going to happen, because he's Drudge and he had a juicy scoop. That's what Drudge does. And you know all too well that many of the other players out there who may try to get some bonus points by now taking the high road would have been only all too happy to run with such a scoop and reap the rewards of notoriety and additional eyeballs...

In this day and age of pervasive media, the MOD was laughably naive to think that an agreement with a few British media outfits would be enough to keep this under wraps. I blame them for the security miscalculation.

And the leak. Which of course begs the question, who leaked the story?

Drudge may have gotten tipped from an Australian tabloid that reported on this in January. More here.

The report this morning is that Harry's being pulled out already. His capture would be such a prize that widespread public knowledge of his presence clearly endangers his fellow soldiers. But no more, now that he's not able to serve in combat. I guess they could try to sneak him somewhere else for a few weeks until it's leaked again.

Imagine what would be happening now if this had been revealed by CBS!!

So I take it this is Matt Drudge? Sorry, but a caption would have helped. Some of us are not tabloid freaks.

And what exactly did he do?

Of course it's Drudge.

Look at, and into, his eyes. Is he "driven," or rather, disturbed (and disturbing)?

A hear hear for Prince Harry. I found it humorous that he is referred to as LT. Wales by his unit.

Try a thought experiment. Replace "Harry Windsor" with, say "James McCain" and imagine his dad is president. Now imagine Drudge had leaked the location and unit of said presidential son on deployment in Iraq. Can you imagine the outrage? Drudge would be finished, if not in jail.

The fact that Drudge did not 'break' this story is not relevant to you, is it Shaun. Another inconvenient truth for you. I guess you are just another MSM full of jealously that you couldn't make the transition to the new world of media (at least not in a manner that pays the bills).

I love the remark about what if it was CBS that broke it. Then we would be hearing about journalist duty and integrity to run the story. Ans why is it 'slimy' to report on this, but it is not 'slimy' to expose legal (but distasteful to the liberal-left media) government programs that attempt to stop terrorism?

Austin, what's your take on Cernig's thought experiment?

It's about judgment., or the lack thereof.
There will always be tension between the right to know, the right to inform and the need to act off-stage. A good reporter, like a good statesman, has a keen sense of how to balance contradictory principles.
Since Drudge doesn't appear to be aware that there are any principles involved to balance, he is a loose cannon.
A cannon ball. once loosed, can do great damage, unfortunately.

My thought is replace 'Matt Drudge' with 'NY Times', and then make Cernig's thought experiment. They would be up for Pulitzer prizes.

And again, this is just Drudge-bashing for fun and sport. He did not break the story, he just repeated it. But it isn't as much to bash someone else, is it?