A responsible blogosphere?

Bruce Robertson

Secrets are history. Get used to it.

Fi

"Fleet Street"? Your blog was happy enough to publish a story, in January, linking Prince Harry with a D-Notice. The Spectator isn't, frankly, either one of the more responsible, or even one of the more informative, bits of the blogosphere. And as for Prince Harry - in his calm, reasonable account of what he is doing, risking his life to protect of our country, he is worth a dozen of any of you. Especially, the, err, 'journalists' who were so proud to go forward with the news, in January, of Prince Harry, a D-Notice, and a story they couldn't report. You are, to coin a phrase, not fit to lick the piss from his boots.

David

It's an issue of responsibility as far as I'm concerned. You wouldn't post the plans for a military action if you had them (I hope)- there are some things where the responsible thing to do is keep quiet. This is one of those times.

Max Kaye

Had the son (or daughter) of the American Head of State been secretly posted to Afghanistan, and this came to the attention of the British blogosphere', I pretty certain they'd be falling over themselves to claim the scoop.

It is nice, however, that they exhibit some patriotism.

Chuck Unsworth

Well many of the Military knew, but managed not to blab it around. This is certainly not the first time that the Royal Family have taken their places alongside others in our armed forces, or indeed visiting them. However, it does highlight the interesting lack of Government members children at the sharp end. Why might that be, one wonders. It might also be interesting to see just how many of the NuLab MPs' family members are in the frontal regions of these hot sandy danger areas, too. Is this a case of Ministers being perfectly happy to send others into danger? I think it probably is. All this pathetic and ritual intonation of condolences at the start of PMQs every Wednesday is, simply, a ghastly sham.

Giles Marshall

I think you're right; this was a case where keeping the secret was right and responsible, given the implications of broadcasting it. In one sense, it is the media created celebrity culture that makes Harry's presence on the frontline a news story at all, and the realisation that perhaps hard news does not always require celebrity turns has made this British agreement a perfectly acceptable one. Snow on Channel 4 News was extraordinarily vehement in his criticism of the secrecy agreement, and made a crass comparison with totalitarian states. A free press does not have mean an irresponsible press - and this agreement was voluntary, and right. We did not need to know that Harry was on the front line. We could have waited until he was back. The net effect of the Australian and German actions is to show the way for the Taliban to get a propaganda victory - restraint might have been more helpful. As for Snow, is splenetic interview tonight reduces him considerably as a figure of any sort of probity or objectivity, and that's bad news for his employer.

Austin Barry

D-Notices are occasionally warranted, and probably so in this instance.

Richard Lacy

Surely, this was a straightforward and easily understood decision. Harry's presence in action, if known, could bring additional danger to other soldiers, and accordingly the CGS decided that if Harry's presence could not be kept secret he would not go. If he did not go there would be no story. The press then agreed to cooperate, either for loyalty or for self-interest. Snow's attitude is thus very silly.

Richard Lacy

Surely, this was a straightforward and easily understood decision. Harry's presence in action, if known, could bring additional danger to other soldiers, and accordingly the CGS decided that if Harry's presence could not be kept secret he would not go. If he did not go there would be no story. The press then agreed to cooperate, either for loyalty or for self-interest. Snow's attitude is thus very silly.

dexey

Because he can bring danger to other soldiers he should not be there.
He is only playing at soldiers, the others are earning their living at it.

Fi

Oh for heaven's sake, what's all this about 'a responsible blogosphere'? For while Guido & Co played by the rules, one particularly irresponsible, deplorable outfit was happy enough to depart from the terms of the D-notice (nb the link below doesn't name Prince Harry, but on the days this link was created, a cached version certainly existed which clearly named him as connected with the D-notice): http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/456681/all-the-news-thats-not-fit-to-print.thtml

David

"Why might that be, one wonders." Because we don't have conscription and thus it's up to the individual concerned whether they want to serve or not? Just a thought.....

Peter

Oh, the arrogance of journos who really believe no-one knows anything unless they tell them. Word of mouth still works, you know. I imagine thousands of folk in this country knew, through Royal, military or journalism sources - I knew several weeks ago and have no such connections. It is inconceivable that the Taliban were not aware of Harry being somewhere in the country. The smug, self-congratulatory tone of much of the TV coverage this evening, and no doubt tomorrow's papers, is quite ridiculous.

Peter

PS I trust you guys are feeling a little bit guilty about posting here on Coffee House a while back about a D Notice on a young Royal story? OK You pulled it fairly quickly, but it should never have been there in the first place. A responsible Blogosphere?

Nicholas

"Snow's attitude is thus very silly." But at least consistent.

Nick

Totally agree that Snow's attitude was disgraceful. There was no public interest in needing to know Prince Harry was out in Afghanistan. Even more ludicrous was Snow's comment that Harry needn't have been in Afghanistan he could have been a banker instead.

Lawrence

Thing is you guys nearly put your foot in it anyway! You reported about a d-notice story in January in relation to a young royal, and then thought better of it and removed the young royal bit.

The Laughing Cavalier

Snow is the reason I've given up watching Channel 4 News.

James

How is that if members of a certain religion state that their loayalty to their country is subordinated to their loyalty to their faith they are howled down in public and the media. Journalists however believe they have a higher loyalty to the "truth" (ie. whatever sells newspapers) than their country. As we say to some others - if you dont like the laws of this country then leave. I am sure there are plenty of other countries like the US where fundamentalist journalism is still practiced.

TT

Jon Snow and that programme he fronts makes me sick. Less than two week ago he was interviewing Usman Malik who successfully appealed a terror-related conviction regarding downloading Islamist terror literature and he gently asked him how Mr Malik felt about jihadism. Mr Malik said he did not want to answer. Snow's response? To look like a dewy-eyed uncle talking to a much-loved nephew, he just moved straight on. Suddenly all the up front questioning he likes to sell himself on disappeared. But if we should worry about rasing the risk of assault on Harry and - more importantly - the troops with Harry, Snow thinks it's all mightily unfair. Am I the only person who watches TV news reporters in Iraq and Afghanistan secretly enjoying it when bullets come whizzing close by them? All but a handful of responsible ones are nothing less than treasonous.

Ruddigore Topsider

Following this in the British news is like watching a Chris Morris satire. I am amazed that people are praising the British media for doing only what common decency required of them. They no more deserve praise than a man who declares he has given up beating his wife. Our national interest and the lives of our soldiers were at stake. That surely is worth more than British broadcasters' self-righteous commitment to 'news' and the pompous regard for some self-policed idea of 'truth'. Anyway, it didn't work out so bad for them: you got the splash in the end, and with the bonus that you've been able to tell each other how terribly restrained you've all been. But the unseemly rush into print with the story, and the self-congratulatory wallowing, is a glimpse into the real soul of much of our journalism.

David Lindsay

If Afghanistan is not safe for Harry, then it's not safe for Tom or Dick, either. Honestly, where does one begin? This is what he was trained for. If we'd wanted a princely toy soldier who put on a dress uniform for ceremonial occasions and that was it, then we wouldn't have spent the money on putting him through Sandhurst. Would we? Since when were the deployments of individuals reported at all? If this was all some big cover-up, then how come nobody on the Boujis and Mahiki circuit seemed to notice that he was missing and alert the relevant websites? And the line of succession is perfectly secure, you know. Most of all, is nobody shooting at the rest of our troops in Afghanistan? Will they now be perfectly safe? Honestly, having begun, where does one end?

CS

Giggle - anyone see tonight's (Friday's) Channel 4 News? It was hilarious. They'd clearly decided that the story was that the entire Muslim population of Britain was up in arms and hating the royal family for Harry's role in Afghanistan. They kept referring to "many British Muslims" feeling disquiet but couldn't find one person coming out of a London mosque who had any problem with Harry being in Afghanistan. The only ones they could find was someone captioned on-screen as "Radical Muslim Extremist" and a former Al-Qaeda supporter. Trying a bit of after-the-fact covering up of Jon Snow's foolishness I suspect by pretending that the issue is controversial.