I actually agree with the British Press on this one. They had the information that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan and did not want to report it; the Drudge Report on the other hand, did not really care and decided to publish it anyways. This is kind of ironic because the British Press publishes EVERYTHING about the Royal Family, so I feel there were obvious reason they did not print this.
This situation could have been dangerous to the Royal Family, and their soldiers orignial reason for going Afghanistan. I know different media outlets need to publish articles/record videos, but if it means endangering others, then we have to find a better way.
In the United States, there's a large and growing problem of elites not serving in the military and, at the same time, the military becoming an institution dominated by the lower middle classes and by families who have a tradition of service. Although America has lower social mobility and lots of hereditary wealth, in Britain, they have a real royal family. But Britain's royals have a long tradition of military service. Prince Andrew, Charles' brother, served as helicopters pilot in the Falklands. And Prince Harry, brother of Prince William and third-in-line to the throne, is serving in the British Army.
Even though he's a royal, he's just a normal soldier and for the past ten weeks, he's been serving in Afghanistan. But we didn't hear about until a few days ago, when the Drudge Report broke the story. It turned out the British government got all the major media outlets in a room and requested that they not report that Harry was in Afghanistan, so he wouldn't endanger his fellow soldiers. The embargo was broken and now Harry is probably going to the Persian Gulf. But was it a good idea for the media to essentially be the lapdogs of the press? I think so.
That's because it's important for elites to serve in the military, especially royals who virtually suck off the fat of the land and get their status, wealth and prestige entirely by virtue of their ancestors generations ago seizign power. Sure, I oppose the mandatory military or community service for regular 18 year olds, but royal children should be in the shit as much as possible. Sure it would have been nice to see William on the front lines a la Henry IV, but getting the modern-day Prince Hal to serve should be commended.
And so I must say that the British press did something truly patriotic by not reporting on Harry’s service for ten whole weeks. This allowed him to serve without endangering his fellow soldiers. It’s not like there’s some compelling reason why the public has to know that Prince Harry is serving while he’s still doing it. And since the info is out now, we can get all the pictures and interviews we want.
It sure looks dangerous, from a liberal, freedom of the press angle, to see journalistic organizations deliberating not reporting something because the government wants them to. But this Prince Harry situation isn’t going to push us down the slippery slope, and if it does, we’re already too far down it anyway. So, bravo British press!
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
This situation could have been dangerous to the Royal Family, and their soldiers orignial reason for going Afghanistan. I know different media outlets need to publish articles/record videos, but if it means endangering others, then we have to find a better way.