For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Drudge outs Prince Harry. This has sparked quite a controversy regarding the media embargoing information at times of war (paragraph break removed):
In a series of meetings at the Ministry of Defence late last year, British media and selected international outlets agreed not to report Harry's deployment in exchange for getting regular pictures, video and text of his day-to-day activities once the planned four-month assignment was completed. There was a reluctance to sign up to such a deal, and an expectation among many that the "understanding", as it was called, would inevitably, rapidly be broken given the nature of Britain's cut-throat, "exclusive-or-nothing" tabloid press.
Drudge isn't apologizing: "Not one to reveal much about himself or the way he works, Drudge maintained a stony silence about this, one of his most explosive scoops."
What say you, NewsBusters? Should Drudge have honored the embargo for Prince Harry's safety? On the other hand, should one man be given anonymity that hundreds of thousands on the front lines aren't?
