The Prince and the Foxhole

I can't feel too worked up about Drudge "outing" Prince Harry's presence in Afghanistan. The story evidently was first leaked by an Australian magazine, which was then picked up by a German newspaper. At that point it was probably inevitable that the cover would be blown, and it just happened to be Drudge who did it.

It's also worth pointing out that Drudge presumably had no agreement with the MoD to not publish the story. It's also also worth pointing out that at the end of the day we're talking about a single soldier whose presence is probably not critical to the overall mission. And since Harry has now been recalled, there's no reason to think that he or his fellow soldiers were placed in particular danger by this leak.

There's a bigger question here, anyway, about the circumstances where it is appropriate for the media to make common cause with the military, and where it is not. Arguably, there's not a particular need for the public to know every action of the princes, but Harry is third in line* for the throne. If he'd been killed in action, and that had been how the world found out where he was, how would the British media have justified not reporting his deployment in the first place? It's certainly hard to justify on a security basis: If the concern is that Harry would be a target and place himself and those around him in danger, the solution is simple: Don't send him. That's what happened when he was almost sent to Iraq. It's unfair to Harry, of course, but should the media bend over backwards for the military for his sole benefit?

As a rule, the press should be extremely reluctant to get into bed with the military on when and how to report, reserving that for only the most clear instances when the media holding off on a story is critical and for the public good. It's hard to see how this case qualifies.

* Corrected from "second in line."