Comments on: Media Was Right not to Reveal Prince Harry’s Mini-Tour in Afghanistan

By: Alain Ochoa

Alain Ochoa — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:03:31 +0000

I do agree with the post. Responsible management of information is one of mass media common failures (and I say that working as a journalist). Did any taxpayer in Britain desperately needed to know about Harry’s service right now? If it was a temporary embargo as it seems, it was right and well done and there were a lot of good reasons to enforce it. The examples you give about names of sexual offenders are also right for me. But many media companies use the “freedom of information” punch line as an alibi for pure showbiz greed.

By: Saskboy

Saskboy — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:03:37 +0000

The Australian rag and Drudge who published his whereabouts are fools for doing what they did. It really is a crime, it’ so bad what they did to Harry.

By: Eric Eggertson

Eric Eggertson — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:03:50 +0000

Considering how seldom a member of the royal family gets to actually do something, rather than walk around like a mechanical doll, it’s sad that the plug got pulled on Harry’s time on the front lines.

We almost forget that they are capable of living real lives, if others would let them.

By: Ike

Ike — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:42:07 +0000

The missing piece is the periodic announcement of the policy. What it is, how it works, and the checks and balances.

The vast majority of news outlets do not have an ombudsman, and the “outraged public” wouldn’t know what one does anyway.

If it makes you have any faith at all in common sense, many right-wing bloggers are ditching Drudge — erasing links and pledging to not feed his traffic — on account of his reporting of this story. Common sense trumps ideology.