Not long ago, the Drudge Report broke the story that Prince Harry had been deployed to and was serving in Afghanistan. The verb broke seems particularly apt to this sort of reporting. As of a few minutes ago, the AP is reporting that Prince Harry’s deployment is at an end.
I’m not a fan of British Royalty. I’m an American and the whole notion of a monarchy is slightly offensive to me. Far too often, the British Royalty provides just another sad celebrity family drama for the tabloids. They are in my opinion more often an embarrassment to Britain than they are a source of national pride and honor, and I believe the history of England is with few exceptions is marked by overcoming the limitations of the monarchy rather than enjoying particularly great leadership. It wasn’t British monarchs that made England master of the seas and the envy of the world. It wasn’t British monarchs that made England a beacon of liberty.
But all that is rather beside the point.
Right down at the most fundamental level, Harry is just a young man serving his country and trying to do the best with the hand of cards he’s been dealt. Harry can’t be blamed for his birth or the sad theater his family provides. I have no illusions that his life of privilege is an easy one. For most people, one of the cruelest things you could do to them is to bestow on them wealth, fame, and privilege. If he manages to rise above that, he will do better than most in the same circumstances.
I have long been a critic of the media reporting news that the public does not in fact need to know. There are some things I’d rather not be told, because if I know them then someone else with ill will also knows them. Good journalistic ethics include knowing when not to publish a story. Just because Drudge is not part of the traditional media, does not exclude him from this criticism. In this case it is particularly bad because there is no possible value the knowledge that Prince Harry is in Afghanistan could have in informing my judgments as a citizen. There is no pressing reason why the public needs to know where any particular young man in the military is serving, even if they are famous. There is no value in the public knowing this knowledge which balances against the life of even one young man, to say nothing of the life of everyone serving with him. These sorts of stories are not posted for the benefit of anyone but the journalists who are eager to get a particular scoop.
So what is the outcome of this scoop? Matt’s actions in my opinion reflect badly on all bloggers and even all Americans. He is injured the career of a soldier, and deprived a young man of his right to honorably serve his country on the field of battle. He has valued his own celebrity status higher than of the lives of a group of young men. And he has discomforted a valuable US ally. I may not care much for British royalty, but the same understandably cannot be said for all the British. Not only has he deprived a young man of a source of pride and honor, but he has in some measure deprived a whole nation. And now we can look forward to a future where any time someone wishes to make the point that online journalists can not be trusted to abide by the ethical standards of traditional journalists, this anecdote can be trotted out.
A public apology by Matt Drudge to all the injured parties would in my opinion be appropriate.
Well said, couldn't agree more. By exercising the virture of restraint, the British press were in fact getting more story. Had they not agreed to keep temporary silence, the Prince would not have gone to Afghanistan and there would have been no story. Of course, Drudge was not part of this quid pro quo and he will forever serve as an example that these private understandings are unenforceable. Result: Less information, not more.
And from the Australian magazine which broke the story from which Drudge got it in the first place too.
As more information has been released, it now appears that Harry had been secretly transferred from the Blues and Royals to 52nd Brigade, 2nd Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles. If I can verify this, I'll change the title.
Celebrim,
I'll quote PD on this. "Well said, couldn't agree more." I would add that by printing the information, Drudge actually endangered Harry and the lives of the soldiers around him, as he would certainly be a high value target for the Taliban and their allies. The news value is next to nothing. It's as though Drudge printed the fact that AL has taken his family to France for 3 weeks and here's his address and the type of alarm system he uses. All true, but of little value and jeopardizing to others.
I concur. There was an audio diary from Harry in Afghanistan on NPR this morning while they where talking to British media. It went something like:
"I'm dirty. I haven't showered in three days, and I haven't washed my clothes in a week. I smell awful. But I feel normal. As normal as I'll every be anyway. "
I found it surprisingly touching, even though I also detest the idea of royalty. This makes me detest Drudge even more.
I agree with the point of your piece, but I question the generalization behind "I’m not a fan of British Royalty. I’m an American and the whole notion of a monarchy is slightly offensive to me."
Not so offensive, it would seem to many Americans, given the penchant for sycophantic adulation afforded the presidency - complete with 'first ladies', 'first dogs', and of late, familial lines of inheritance. The veneration of 2nd and I think now third generation Hollywood 'royalty' further fuels my suspicions.
Vhat iz diz "sycophantic adulation" that you spe-ak ov?
Ian Coull:
Add to that list the ridiculous, immensely over-the-top, theatrical security and protocol apparatus that surrounds the US president whenever he goes anywhere.
For example, he is usually offered the SAS, the best troops in the world and trained in anti-terrorism, as guards when he visits Britain; and it's always refused.
I heard the same NPR clip as alchemist and felt the same sense of lost.
I think there is a classic American sense (captured in The Prince and the Pauper) that life born in a gilded cage is a sort of prison in which one does not truly get to experience life. The Prince was free, but the cage beckons.
PD, all the same, I wouldn't mind a chance to verify that gilded cage scenario.
"For most people, one of the cruelest things you could do to them is to bestow on them wealth, fame, and privilege."
I volunteer to test that out.
Back in the 1991 Gulf War before the ground campaign, stupid reporters would ask military briefers questions like "When does the ground war start, General?" Even Saturday Night Live ridiculed the Press for being so dumb.
There are things that the public at large don't have an immediate need to know about. This was one example. It goes to show why so many people in the military distrust the Press. While the reporter/blogger gets his headline and fame, the military members become more exposed to death.
Back in WWII and shortly before an invasion (might've been Sicily but I'm not certain), reporters were peppering Eisenhower with similar stupid questions. Eisenhower did something completely unexpected - he told them everything. He gave them a complete briefing of the invasion plans and then told the Press that if any of it leaked, they'll have to answer to the public back home. None of it leaked. I don't for a second believe the Press at large (and I include bloggers in this group) would sit on a story like that anymore.
Young Harry had a chance, for once in his life, to be a "norm", as opposed to "A Royal". He's out there in the sandbox, sweating and stinking with the rest of the Brits. He's asking for, and getting no, "Royal Treatment". He wanted to be 'just another bloke', and he had it - for a while.
Much like the fictional Pinocchio, who just wanted to be "A real boy".
He doesn't want to make his mates a target, just because he's there, and so he will be coming home. It's pretty impressive that the UK Press agreed to keep a lid on this until his deployment was done. Quite nice of them, considering what we all think they are. Not Drudge, or the OZ press, of course.
mark (#10), we'll see what we can do about setting you up with Britney Spears and/or Tara Reid. No promises, though.
Good on Harry for going... he was originally refused posting to Basra with his unit, and I thought the decision very, very wrong at the time. And here's a rare ,burst of applause for the British - and even some American - press.
My opinion of Drudge just sank, though. There's a point where you simply have to have some level of decency as a journalist. We can argue about where that line is, but setting someone up to be killed crosses that line by any civilized standard.
And speaking as a loyal subject of the Queen, the monarchy has its virtues.
The American President gets all that hoopla because they're the Head of State, as well as the political leader of the country. There's some wisdom in separating those things. For one, it creates a loyalty to a symbol of the nation that's unadulterated by one's political leanings.
Obviously, America's history made that option a non-starter. It has a noble republican tradition of its own, and one would want its residents to prefer that as their own patrimony.
But that need not make the British tradition and its virtues less noble.
In Commonwealth countries like Canada, the Prime Minister appoints (advises, but the advice is always accepted) a Governor-General to serve in this role for a set period on the Queen's behalf. There's no reason it couldn't be a member of the Windsors, I suppose, but by tradition it's always a local resident.
As for the British royal family, I wouldn't take their job even for all the money they have, and all the privileges they get.
Drudge is no better than Katie Couric.
Joe,
" we'll see what we can do about setting you up with Britney Spears and/or Tara Reid. No promises, though."
Thanks, but I was thinking more along the lines of Princess Caroline of M*naco. Any pull in that direction?
Isn't Jim McCain, John McCain's son and an enlisted Marine, serving in Iraq?
mark [#10],
Think about the marginal value of money. From where we all are, to a net worth of a dozen or two million, the marginal value is pretty much positive, although it levels off quite a lot as you get above the first couple. That is, for most of us, having an extra thousand dollars is pretty certainly a good thing. Once you're well into the millionaire status, an extra thousand means essentially zero.
But the really counter-intuitive thing is that the marginal value goes negative when you get above that. Instead of that money giving you more freedom, it gives you less. Once you are chased around constantly by reporters, and have to have guards for your children, you can be pretty sure the marginal value of money has gone negative.
As your fortune gets really large, it's no longer working for you. You are working for it. It will outlive you, and you will be judged by how well you serve it and apply it. You probably have to give up the job that got you the money in the first place (which you probably enjoyed, if you did so well), in order to take care of it.
Some people do this well (Bill Gates, for example). Others not so well (read any tabloid, but Paris Hilton is certain a poster child for the problem).
So, yeah, it sounds great, and probably would be for a while, but day after day, I imagine it can be a drag. (You don't see very many people giving it up, though.)
Good for Harry for grabbing his chance to be real, however briefly. Bad on Drudge.
I'm glad we have been bombed; I feel I can look the East End in the face." The Queen Mother during the Blitz - WWII. We've been pretty lucky with our Kings & Queens and they have provided inspired leadership. Whenever there's a Mustachioed foreigner ready to plague this Green and sceptered isle there's always been somebody like Henry V or Queen Elizabeth I to tell them and their Armada's at the point of a sword to bugger off back home.- although I conceed Prince Charles talking to plants is a tad embarrasing.
As a Brit I find it far from offensive and not incompatible with freedom that out head of state is non elected. As I always say to my American friends I thank God every day our head of state is not another scumbag politician that will sell his grandmother for a vote. As a former serviceman I would have been incredibly uncomfortable with President Blair as my Commander in Chief (although President Maggie would have been great). The point of Monarchy over a Republic is the stability it brings during the transfer of political parties, and it is interesting that the majority of countries that still retain a Monarchy have been more stable and prosperous than their Republic counterparts - Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Japan etc. It is also worth noting that three of these Kingdoms also supply the world's best looking women, four if you count Kiera Knightley.
Naturally the US is one of the world's great sucess stories as far as Republics go but for every US there are about 5 "Democratic Republic of Congo's, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) or absolute disasters like the Republique Francaise. Obviously my logic isn't bombproof as those who have had to sit through the annual Kingdom Of Swaziland's "Reed Dance" where old King Mswati picks up a new bride will attest. Nevertheless I will again point out that Freedom and Monarchy are not incompatible, nor Republics and Liberty natural bedfellows - as Kim Jong Il's concubines would say were they allowed to speak.
Enjoyed the post by the way. And thanks for the kind words on Cornet (2nd Lieutenant) Wales.
Just a note on Prince Harry and which unit he belongs to:
I think the British Royals do not stay with a particular service, but gets rotated around, kind of like a management "intern" :)
The most recent news I heard about Harry, before the current Afghanistan stuff, was that he was on his RAF rotation, where he was learning to fly and do other pilot work. He had finished his army rotation with the Blues and Royals.
Therefore, I think he was serving as a JTAC from the RAF, detached to the Gurkhas, for his Afghanistan duties. Which is similar to the US practice, where USAF was jealously guarding its JTAC role and mission; US Army could not directly call on CAS before OIF, but always had to rely on the USAF liason to do so.
Not to say that he has lost his affiliation with Blues & Royals.
Jimmy
Please do not confuse the two Princes. The prince you are describing is HRH Prince William and as a future King has to serve in all three services because he will eventually become the head of them.
HRH Prince Harry is still currently serving in The Blues & Royals and like all the other officers I have served with in the past is doing a good job and not looking for preferential treatment. The average Household Cavalry officers comes from privileged backgrounds and will eventually become Lords, Earls etc. I know from the experience of working for a family with a son that just wants to be "one of the boys" that normal life for them can be difficult due to the pressure from their families and the great burden of responsibility forced upon them.
There are times I am glad I am just a poor Scouser who grew up in the colourful area of Liverpool.