Was it right/wrong for Prince Harry's war presence to be exposed?

Question

big stink caused when non UK media ran a feature on Prince Harry (3rd in line to the UK throne), despite all UK press/tv agreeing to news blackout - mainly to allow him and his crew the space and privacy to serve, in an already dangerous situation. this is about the medoa coverage only, and not to discuss virtues of any war itself.

Answer 1

News flash ... KGB style censorship went away when soviet regime was abolished.

Media is in business to sell sensation.  This is sensational news.  Get over it.  If you don’t like it, then don’t read it.

Answer 2

wrong in this case it not only exposed harry but the men who work with him, stupid and irresponsible

Answer 3

Wrong.  I believe the Matt Drudge should've kept quiet, but that's not really realistic.  Somebody was bound to find out and let the cat out of the bag at some point.

Answer 4

it was extremely wrong to do that. Basically it was knowingly endangering the lives of the whole unit.  I'd like to ship Matt Drudge off to the Taliban.

Answer 5

Not very sensible to disclose potential targets to the enemy.

The media does need to understand the danger of letting cats out of bags. It puts both the target and others in the same area in danger. It would be an idea to run security checks on reporters and their publications before they are sent on such assignments.

Answer 6

Yeah, it was wrong. But amazing that it was kept a secret as long as it was.

Glad he had the opportunity to go play war for a little while.

(US)

Answer 7

wrong. The Australians ran the story first.

Answer 8

its called his bloodletting but its probably still murder.

and hes to me just one sperm and one egg.  equal in the eyes of science.

Answer 9

the media was wrong in exposing it

I think that THEY were looking to make money

The media know that when exposed Harry AND his unit would be a target

harry just had his mouth shut