PRINCE HARRY WOULD RATHER FIGHT THE TALIBAN THAN GO TO NIGHTCLUBS

princecutharry11PA_468x320.jpg
There’s a major debate going on regarding Prince Harry’s tour of duty in Afghanistan. The UK press and agencies like Reuters knew about Harry’s service and all agreed to hold the story until Harry, 23, came home. How the cut-throat UK papers were persuaded to do this is amazing in itself. There were ‘hints” about Harry in the German and Australian press but The Drudge Report blew it out of the water. Harry had been really happy fighting the Taliban for ten weeks because he was “just one of the guys” with no special privileges. Now he’s been dragged home but still hopes to return to combat. The debate continues: Was it right for The Drudge Report to out Harry? Was it wrong for the news agencies to make that deal and suppress the story? What’s your opinion?

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Posted by hoodlum on February 29, 2008

There are 31 Comments.  TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK!

31 Comments so far

  1. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    You could get into dangerous waters when the press agrees to go along to keep something out of the papers. Maybe in this case it was warranted, but where do you draw the line? Freedom of speech and freedom of the press shouldn’t be toyed with.

  2. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Surely you are not falling for this exercise in Public Relations 101?
    The Royals and the British Government agreed to send Harry into “battle” — under the safest possible circumstances — and then allowed the story to conveniently “leak” at a pre-determined time, in this case, 10 weeks.
    Now he is “reluctantly” being called home after that nasty press divulged the secret of his meritorious service to crown and country.
    It’s enough to make one gag.
    But Harry is now a “hero,” and a high profile narrative resulting in tons of adulatory press is born, deflecting from the usual coverage of the royals and their endless vacations and high-living which are enjoyed at the expense of the British people.
    Mission accomplished indeed.

  3. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Well that question is just nuts. Of course it was correct to supress the story and of course it was wrong to leak it! The politics of the situation aside, hanging a neon arrow over a battlefield pointing out the highest profile target is insane. This is a story that has no real news value other than catering to the celebrity watchers. Of which I’m one, yeah, but if knowing Harry’s whereabouts is going to cause harm to the person standing next to him, hey – I’m all for being kept in the dark.

  4. By ventura
    On February 29, 2008 at

    it was correct to suppress the story. Putting someone(s) in harm’s way intentionally–look at all the flak Geraldo Rivera got–is just bad journalism and appalling on a personal level.

  5. By Nellie Bly
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Speaking as a journalist, I do think it was wrong to leak the information. Embargoes on stories happen all the time for many reasons.
    It’s not a freedom of speech issue because they weren’t say the press could never report the story, just wait till a certain moment.
    In this case, common knowledge that Prince Harry was in a war zone could have exposed him to unnecessary danger (not from the Taliban, who probably knew he was there anyway, but from wackos in the world). It’s a much different world than when Prince Andrew flew over the Falklands.

  6. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Right or wrong, we are at war. At no time is this kind of reporting going to be appropriate. Apparently the Drudge Report doesn’t know or care that lives could be at risk here. Not just Prince Harry’s. There is no doubt in my mind that the Drudge Report feels justified in printing this just as there is no doubt in my mind that they’d feel blameless if Prince Harry & company had been killed by a suicide bomber after the story came out. I for one would be happy if Drudge would go back to discussing who Paris Hilton is sleeping with this week & leave the whereabouts of the military overseas out of the public eye.

  7. By cal
    On February 29, 2008 at

    10:53am Yes I agree – that is what I think too.

  8. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Surely you are not falling for this exercise in Public Relations 101?
    The Royals and the British Government agreed to send Harry into “battle” — under the safest possible circumstances — and then allowed the story to conveniently “leak” at a pre-determined time, in this case, 10 weeks.
    Now he is “reluctantly” being called home after that nasty press divulged the secret of his meritorious service to crown and country.
    It’s enough to make one gag.
    But Harry is now a “hero,” and a high profile narrative resulting in tons of adulatory press is born, deflecting from the usual coverage of the royals and their endless vacations and high-living which are enjoyed at the expense of the British people.
    Mission accomplished indeed.
    This is 100% correct.

  9. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Get your facts straight – Drudge didn’t out Harry – it was outed in January by some women’s site.
    Damn – he’s nice looking.

  10. By Secret Agent 101
    On February 29, 2008 at

    It was planned this way from the first day he went to Afghanistan. The Royals and British Government leave nothing to chance. Duh, the spin of the century. BTW, I think Harry is basically cuter than William.

  11. By Caren
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Hey Janet, how are you and the dogs. Yes,VERY wrong. They put his life in danger!

  12. By Caren
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Hey Janet, how are you and the dogs. Yes,VERY wrong. They put his life in danger!

  13. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    I agree. This was a set-up by the Monarchy to get Harry out of there.

  14. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    I admire Harry. He’s been wanting to do his part for a long time. The UK papers were absolutely right for keeping his deployment secret. He’s one of the royals from over there that actually wants to do his part and be anonymous like the tens of thousands of soldiers past and present that do this all the time without it being front page news. I applaud him

  15. By ------------ 000--------------------------------
    On February 29, 2008 at

    THE WARMING WARNING!!!!!!!

  16. By Sunseeds777
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Prince Harry should become a Gurka and really become a fighter warrior.
    What’s his brother doing – taking flying lessons.
    Wonder if he’ll ever pilot a Hawker in Mississippi.

  17. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    Where’s Clapton at ?
    That’s probably an even bigger mystery.

  18. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    You know for all intents and purpose they should have kept him there and made sure everybody in the world knew where he was located at, so as he’d be a great decoy to those terrorists who’d want to take a shot at him…
    Wonder what kind of a bounty, he’d fetch to the Taliban or Al Queda ?
    SEND THAT GUY BACK.
    Wonder where Pierce Morgan is at, or Clapton (he likes shooting at clay pigeon’s – think of the photo op of him shooting that .50 cal machine gun.

  19. By Anonymous
    On February 29, 2008 at

    the red head is coming home !

  20. By brian birchall, rancher
    On March 1, 2008 at

    Harry was home by the time of the alleged ‘leak’. Why is Britain in Afghanistan? Did Afghanistan attack the U.K.?
    February 29, 2008 10:53 AM
    Posted by: Anonymous had it perfectly worded. I couldn’t agree more!

  21. By Anonymous
    On March 1, 2008 at

    too bad we can’t dress up paris, lindsay, britney, perez hilton, the olson twins, and other celebutards as terrorists and put them into afghanistan for Prince Harry to shoot.

  22. By Anonymous
    On March 1, 2008 at

    Drudge is a good-for-nothing, self-hating, right-wing, closeted, anything-for-a-buck sleaze. He will get what’s coming.

  23. By Thinkaboutit
    On March 1, 2008 at

    Do most folks really think he was in Afgh. without any “special protection”. Ha!!. He may have been treated like the rest as to meals, sleeping quarters, duties, etc. But, make no mistake, he was protected by an unmarked special unit. Do you think they would allow him to walk around London, etc. unprotected by secret service, and not have s.s. protection there. It is a spin job. He was in some danger, but he was ‘protected’ for all intents and purposes. This news story should have been entitled “spin City”. They knew the day and the hour he would return and when the story would “leak”.

  24. By allsorts of pounds
    On March 1, 2008 at

    from where i am, all the girls have the hots for “Sexy Ginge Harry”. go go harry!
    we like you better than your brother.

  25. By Patrick
    On March 1, 2008 at

    He was just plinkin rags from the weeds with The Kings own Ghurkas keepin six around him.
    Phillip will be proud.
    They’ll give him the C.B.E.

  26. By Neena
    On March 2, 2008 at

    I think it was right to supress the story – after all Harry will always be a target when he is out on duty overseas; so it’s only right that his location is kept a secret. For his sake and for the other soldiers sake.
    It was irresponsible for the Drudge Report and other blogs to leak this information.
    I think though there will definitely be a problem in the future when Harry does go to a warzone to fight again. As i suspect his location will be leaked.

  27. By Anonymous
    On March 2, 2008 at

    Bring Harry home where he belongs. I can’t think of anything worse than having some crazed out, rag head put a bullet in that beautiful body. Harry should be King and then everything would be right in the world.

  28. By Anonymous
    On March 2, 2008 at

    The australians released the story first with admiration and pity for Harry’s private suffering and frankly this shames the falling British nation to repell socialism, teaching us a lesson not to trust liberals, for not allowing talent freedoms to any fine young man willing to honor his country with his life!

  29. By prttymn
    On March 2, 2008 at

    How much cynicism does it take to actually believe that this whole thing was “planned” it’s sad to think that someone is that jaded that they believe that someone as famous, powerful, and rich, has to stoop to some kind of PR stunt. What the hell do you believe this will gain any of the Royals? They don’t get paid according to their popularity. Get over Yourself!

  30. By Anonymous
    On March 3, 2008 at

    Planned or not the fact is the media endangered not only Harry, but his friends with careless reporting. What happened to “responsible reporting?”

  31. By Anonymous
    On March 3, 2008 at

    prttymn: Take some time to read the British press coverage of this story — in lieu of running your mouth.
    You’ll learn very quickly just what the Royal Family and the British Government — i.e. The Establishment — gained by this little endeavor.
    Why do the powers that be keep putting out batches of Kool-aid?
    Because brainless idiots who drink it without question — such as yourself — are apparently in abundance.

31 Responses to “PRINCE HARRY WOULD RATHER FIGHT THE TALIBAN THAN GO TO NIGHTCLUBS”




XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant Janet Charlton's Hollywood a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate comments will be removed at admin's discretion.

Follow Janet


blog advertising is good for you

Categories

Custom Search
© 2006-2012. All rights reserved. Janet Charlton's Hollywood.
Web Development by Strange, Funny, Weird, Dark | Private Policy

blog advertising is good for you

NEW UPDATE CHECK IT OUT - HOLLYWOOD WHODUNIT!

  • HOLLYWOOD WHODUNIT: LOOK WHO’S NOT TALKING ABOUT HARVEY WEINSTEIN !
    |

    We love every one of Harvey Weinstein’s female accusers – but what about the actresses who AREN’T talking? One actress who won an Oscar in the 90’s has been CONSPICUOUSLY SILENT about the casting couch scandal. It’s because SHE has had a long-term “arrangement” with Harvey in which she traded sex for showbiz favors and it must have been awful, but her career prospered. Now this A-lister is horrified at the prospect of being found out! And, guess what – she’s NOT the only one who’s conspicuously silent!
    Any guesses?

    Save

    Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
  • RSSArchive for NEW UPDATE CHECK IT OUT - HOLLYWOOD WHODUNIT! »

Janet Charlton’s Hollywood Blog Archives

Previously Posted Items

December 2017
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031