Yesterday I was browsing through CNN’s front page when I saw the headline “Prince Harry sent to Afghanistan”. Now, how is that safe? How is that ok? Why would the media think that is something that is ok to report? More importantly - why did the military release that information about Prince (hello! Valued citizen!) Harry? I think it’s obvious that by releasing that information, they were endangering Harry. More danger than he already was in for fighting in Afghanistan anyways. Not to mention the danger this information poses on the people he is stationed with.
And then, first thing this morning, I check CNN’s front page and the headline says “Prince Harry pulled from Afghanistan”. Fucking duh.
If George W. Bush had a son and he was fighting in Afghanistan, I guarantee you the United States military would think more than twice about releasing that information.
And now people are getting angry that Harry has been pulled from Afghanistan and that the media was hesitant to report it. Harry wants to serve in the military like all the men in his family did. If he wasn’t Prince Harry, just Harry, there wouldn’t be media stories about it. When you serve in the military, you generally can’t disclose too much information about where you’re stationed… but because he’s Prince Harry and his every move is national news, he doesn’t get the pleasure of serving a normal amount of time in the military the same way other soldiers are.
The problem is that it isn’t news when the military deploys people to a secret location. That information is secret for a reason - and while I don’t support the government fighting in wars or hiding information from the people paying for the wars, I think information such as this should have been kept secret.
I am very against censorship, but there is a reason all the major media outlets in the UK agreed to not report this story: they knew better than to endanger the lives of innocent soldiers. Matt Drudge? Not so much.
Post a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.