T Nation

Harry in Afghanistan

Matt Drudge, Asshole

Until Thursday, that is, when the Drudge Report, citing an article in an obscure Australian magazine, gleefully broke the news on its Web site. �??Prince Harry Fights on Front Lines in Afghanistan,�?? it reported, spoiling the carefully orchestrated deal under which British news organizations had been given details about the prince�??s deployment in exchange for not telling anyone.

So it was already published in Australia first?

Secret was already out. Drudge did him a favor.

It is likely the bad guys would have found even if the Aussie magazine didn’t publish it.

All it takes is one email from a sympathetic member of the British media. it is not like they don’t have Muslims in England.

They don’t have to publish the story to get the word out.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is likely the bad guys would have found even if the Aussie magazine didn’t publish it.

All it takes is one email from a sympathetic member of the British media. it is not like they don’t have Muslims in England.

They don’t have to publish the story to get the word out.[/quote]

There is a world of difference. That sounds like a nice apology for Drudge.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is likely the bad guys would have found even if the Aussie magazine didn’t publish it.

All it takes is one email from a sympathetic member of the British media. it is not like they don’t have Muslims in England.

They don’t have to publish the story to get the word out.

There is a world of difference. That sounds like a nice apology for Drudge.[/quote]

How dare Drudge report this vital fact! National security at risk!

Give me a break, when the media reports things that are truly harmful to the effort you are one of the guys cheerleading.

Edit: Drudge didn’t leak it. An Aussie magazine did. I understand the NYT being upset Drudge beat them to the punch but what do you care? Either way it was out.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is likely the bad guys would have found even if the Aussie magazine didn’t publish it.

All it takes is one email from a sympathetic member of the British media. it is not like they don’t have Muslims in England.

They don’t have to publish the story to get the word out.

There is a world of difference. That sounds like a nice apology for Drudge.

How dare Drudge report this vital fact! National security at risk!

Give me a break, when the media reports things that are truly harmful to the effort you are one of the guys cheerleading.

Edit: Drudge didn’t leak it. An Aussie magazine did. I understand the NYT being upset Drudge beat them to the punch but what do you care? Either way it was out. [/quote]

As before, there is a world of difference between whistle-blowing on torture and selfishly disclosing the identity of a junior officer to make headlines (and money).

And the whole point of the Drudge thing is that no one reads an obscure Australian magazine, that’s why the story was made by Drudge. Believe it or not, some things can slip under the radar, even today.

And the conduct of the British press, if you know anything about how sleazy and sensationalist most of it is, is pretty impressive.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…As before, there is a world of difference between whistle-blowing on torture and selfishly disclosing the identity of a junior officer to make headlines (and money).
[/quote]

There you go again. Dunking 3 AQ leaders heads underwater 5 years ago is not the sort of systematic torture you and the media portray it to be.

The media coverage certainly has done more harm than the actions themselves.

The secret was out. I had no idea Drudge “broke” it. I read it two places yesterday, the NYT and CNN websites.

[quote]

And the conduct of the British press, if you know anything about how sleazy and sensationalist most of it is, is pretty impressive.[/quote]

I am surprised they kept from reporting it as long as they did but how did an “obscure” magazine get the story? Someone didn’t keep their mouth shut.

To blame Drudge is silly. The NYT is just mad he beat them by a few hours.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…As before, there is a world of difference between whistle-blowing on torture and selfishly disclosing the identity of a junior officer to make headlines (and money).

There you go again. Dunking 3 AQ leaders heads underwater 5 years ago is not the sort of systematic torture you and the media portray it to be.

The media coverage certainly has done more harm than the actions themselves.

And the whole point of the Drudge thing is that no one reads an obscure Australian magazine, that’s why the story was made by Drudge. Believe it or not, some things can slip under the radar, even today.

The secret was out. I had no idea Drudge “broke” it. I read it two places yesterday, the NYT and CNN websites.

And the conduct of the British press, if you know anything about how sleazy and sensationalist most of it is, is pretty impressive.

I am surprised they kept from reporting it as long as they did but how did an “obscure” magazine get the story? Someone didn’t keep their mouth shut.

To blame Drudge is silly. The NYT is just mad he beat them by a few hours.[/quote]

This sums it up:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/03/mr-bigmouth/

"You know that your name is mud when you cannot keep a secret that even the notorious blabbermouths of Fleet Street managed to silence among themselves. Yes, there were two teeny-tiny reports earlier. Both occurred in women�??s fashion/gossip magazines: one in Australia months ago, and one in Germany which speculated that he might be in Iraq. Neither was authoritative. Neither was taken seriously. Both were actually quite vague. Then Matt �??I can�??t keep my big mouth shut�?? Drudge stepped up to the plate with an �??Exclusive,�?? revealing at the top of his lungs that Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, was doing his duty and fighting in Afghanistan. And apparently, he doesn�??t care that he blew it for one of our best and oldest allies.

For crying out loud, even the notorious tabloids of Britain managed to keep their mouths shut, though they knew about it the whole danged time. But blabbermouth Drudge has no qualms when he thinks he’s got an exclusive, it’s all about the hitcount (21st century version of ratings). Nice job Drudge. Way to go. Damage our alliance. Give the US another black-eye over in the UK. Put one of our ally�??s most valued soldiers (and those around him) in danger, and call it a day, eh?

With �??Support the Troops�?? idiots like this around, who needs enemies?"

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…As before, there is a world of difference between whistle-blowing on torture and selfishly disclosing the identity of a junior officer to make headlines (and money).

There you go again. Dunking 3 AQ leaders heads underwater 5 years ago is not the sort of systematic torture you and the media portray it to be.

The media coverage certainly has done more harm than the actions themselves.

And the whole point of the Drudge thing is that no one reads an obscure Australian magazine, that’s why the story was made by Drudge. Believe it or not, some things can slip under the radar, even today.

The secret was out. I had no idea Drudge “broke” it. I read it two places yesterday, the NYT and CNN websites.

And the conduct of the British press, if you know anything about how sleazy and sensationalist most of it is, is pretty impressive.

I am surprised they kept from reporting it as long as they did but how did an “obscure” magazine get the story? Someone didn’t keep their mouth shut.

To blame Drudge is silly. The NYT is just mad he beat them by a few hours.

This sums it up:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/03/mr-bigmouth/

"You know that your name is mud when you cannot keep a secret that even the notorious blabbermouths of Fleet Street managed to silence among themselves. Yes, there were two teeny-tiny reports earlier. Both occurred in womenâ¿¿s fashion/gossip magazines: one in Australia months ago, and one in Germany which speculated that he might be in Iraq. Neither was authoritative. Neither was taken seriously. Both were actually quite vague. Then Matt â¿¿I canâ¿¿t keep my big mouth shutâ¿¿ Drudge stepped up to the plate with an â¿¿Exclusive,â¿¿ revealing at the top of his lungs that Prince Harry, third in line to the British throne, was doing his duty and fighting in Afghanistan. And apparently, he doesnâ¿¿t care that he blew it for one of our best and oldest allies.

For crying out loud, even the notorious tabloids of Britain managed to keep their mouths shut, though they knew about it the whole danged time. But blabbermouth Drudge has no qualms when he thinks he’s got an exclusive, it’s all about the hitcount (21st century version of ratings). Nice job Drudge. Way to go. Damage our alliance. Give the US another black-eye over in the UK. Put one of our allyâ¿¿s most valued soldiers (and those around him) in danger, and call it a day, eh?

With â¿¿Support the Troopsâ¿¿ idiots like this around, who needs enemies?"[/quote]

So an Austrialian fashion magazine fashionably reported it first.