SO Prince Harry has been serving in Afghanistan as a battlefield air controller. The Prince, who is third in line to the throne, has been calling in air strikes and carrying out surveillance of Taliban fighters in Helmand province.
The story only became public yesterday when reports of Prince Harry’s posting began to leak out on foreign websites.
It seems only a matter of time before the Prince will be withdrawn from Afghanistan now that his cover was blown.
Late last year, I, along with a number of senior editors were briefed about Prince Harry’s possible deployment, though no details were given at the time. We agreed, with all other UK media, not to report news of the prince’s deployment, and this was taken after agreement was reached with the Ministry of Defence and Clarence House.
I didn’t even brief my staff about the information – news was kept that tight.
Once the Prince was deployed into the war zone, only a close circle of his family and friends were told, and according to reports this morning, fewer than 15 MoD officials were told to avoid making Harry and those around him more of a target.
As part of the media blackout, a small number of journalists went to Helmand province in southern Afghanistan and you can read those reports in today’s newspapers and see film coverage on television.
Already, the media has been accused of being in the pockets of the MoD and the Government, of “colluding with the authorities”. Respect MP, George Galloway went on the offensive today saying he did not like to see the British media, and particularly the BBC, becoming “part of the war effort”.
How wrong can Mr Galloway be? This was a very necessary media blackout. No one in the British media would have taken any pleasure in reporting Prince Harry’s deployment and so putting him and the soldiers around him at extra risk. It would have been wholly irresponsible, and conversely, at a time when the media is often accused of being thus, here was a moment when we worked together.
There are times when we do agree to media blackouts from authorities. Kidnappings, for instance. Why would we want to prejudice the safety of those who are in danger for the sake of selling a few extra newspapers or increasing the size of our TV or radio audience? The media, though certainly not whiter than white, has shown here that it can be responsible in the interests of national security, and we consistently do so with a series of briefings from the MoD through what are known as D notices.
It is a shame the foreign media who blurted out the story could not, but in the global, fast-moving world of the media, with digital technology, the worry always was that the story might leak out.
Prince Harry is a brave man, as are all the soldiers who serve their country, who put their lives on the line, and for those who make the ultimate sacrifice. The young Prince hasn’t enjoyed the best of press at times, but the one positive aspect of this coverage is that it casts him and the royal family in a positive light.

On a separate note, thank you to mumstheword aka Becky and to John C for their positive comments to last week’s blog about domestic violence.
I agree with you John about the literals which I am trying hard to reduce. Hopefully you may have seen a reduction of these in recent months. We’re not perfect – the other day we wrote about non-evasive surgery rather than non-invasive surgery. I will set the standards and do my best to ensure they are followed.

The multitude of fans who have been following mumstheword’s blog and her comments on-line will be delighted to know that Becky has started her attachment with the Advertiser and is working with us two days a week. It was good to meet Becky earlier this week, and I hope she gains a lot from working with the editorial team at the Adver.