So, Prince Harry is in Afghanistan. Serving (did reluctant NATO countries need better evidence than this to prove US and British forces really are desperate for additional forces in Helmand...!?).
Serving Secretly (obviously not secret enough...). On the front line. Since December.
And apparently 500 metres (what happened to yards?) from Taliban fighters.
"Chief of the General Staff and professional head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, was furious the strictly-enforced embargo had been broken" (read here)
The story was first leaked by New Idea. Back in January. Everyone says how naughty of New Idea to leak this story. For those like me who had never heard of new idea, here's why. New Idea is an Australian women's magazine that "provides entertainment, information and ultimately enjoyment and satisfaction to Australian women".
Anyway, a US blog (yes, a blog, or more precisely a news aggregation web site - the Drudge Report) "picked up the story and broadcast it around the world, after a German newspaper ran a piece on Thursday" (golly they're slow...)
Dannatt didn't mince his words: "This is in stark contrast to the highly-responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations. After a lengthy period of discussion between the MoD and the editors of regional, national and international media, the editors took the commendable attitude to restrain their coverage".
Sky News and practically everyone broadcaster and newspaper in the UK thought, the hell with it, if it's been printed on a news aggregator and an Australian women's magazine (never doubt the power of the women's magazine with audiences in terror training camps...) we might as well print and broadcast the full thing; at least it wasn't all that secret to them anyway.
A bit naive of the MoD to think the media - all of them - would honour some sort of news blackout agreed by British media. If it was agreed only with British media and only British media knew about it, where did the leak originated from?
Sky and the BBC were happy to tut-tut the behaviour of foreign media (err... the accents may be estuary English but isn't the station almost practically foreign anyway?) and what do we get next in the news?
A report on how the way the UK media is reporting the Jersey child abuse story risks tainting the image of the island forever...
Just one more thing. "It's no great holiday resort apparently but I really look forward to going there. It is winter, which is a slight disappointment, it is just going to be a little bit cold, a bit snowy, but at least we might have a white Christmas", said the prince before leaving in December, dismissing "bullet magnet" fears.
Today we hear the interview recorded some time ago where he says at least the weather is a lot better "and I hear the weather in Britain is poo!"
That's just no way of treating British weather...!
Serving Secretly (obviously not secret enough...). On the front line. Since December.
And apparently 500 metres (what happened to yards?) from Taliban fighters.
"Chief of the General Staff and professional head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, was furious the strictly-enforced embargo had been broken" (read here)
The story was first leaked by New Idea. Back in January. Everyone says how naughty of New Idea to leak this story. For those like me who had never heard of new idea, here's why. New Idea is an Australian women's magazine that "provides entertainment, information and ultimately enjoyment and satisfaction to Australian women".
Anyway, a US blog (yes, a blog, or more precisely a news aggregation web site - the Drudge Report) "picked up the story and broadcast it around the world, after a German newspaper ran a piece on Thursday" (golly they're slow...)
Dannatt didn't mince his words: "This is in stark contrast to the highly-responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations. After a lengthy period of discussion between the MoD and the editors of regional, national and international media, the editors took the commendable attitude to restrain their coverage".
Sky News and practically everyone broadcaster and newspaper in the UK thought, the hell with it, if it's been printed on a news aggregator and an Australian women's magazine (never doubt the power of the women's magazine with audiences in terror training camps...) we might as well print and broadcast the full thing; at least it wasn't all that secret to them anyway.A bit naive of the MoD to think the media - all of them - would honour some sort of news blackout agreed by British media. If it was agreed only with British media and only British media knew about it, where did the leak originated from?
Sky and the BBC were happy to tut-tut the behaviour of foreign media (err... the accents may be estuary English but isn't the station almost practically foreign anyway?) and what do we get next in the news?
A report on how the way the UK media is reporting the Jersey child abuse story risks tainting the image of the island forever...Just one more thing. "It's no great holiday resort apparently but I really look forward to going there. It is winter, which is a slight disappointment, it is just going to be a little bit cold, a bit snowy, but at least we might have a white Christmas", said the prince before leaving in December, dismissing "bullet magnet" fears.
Today we hear the interview recorded some time ago where he says at least the weather is a lot better "and I hear the weather in Britain is poo!"
That's just no way of treating British weather...!
2 comments:
Good for Harry I say, and it's one in the eye for Republicans - I notice Bliar was happy to start wars but his kids never went to fight.
I have to say he looked like he was having quite a good time firing that machine gun... I wouldn't mind trying one of those myself.
The blackout also applied to Brown's and Blair's visits to Afghanistan and Iraq, so why not Harry?
However, I don't see how letting the Taliban know he was there could put him and other soldiers more at risk than they already are. Surely terrorists are already trying quite hard at aiming at westerners there. Unless they have surplus forces they can deploy?
Post a Comment