UK broadcast and online media ran stories yesterday about Prince Harry's military deployment with the British Army in Afghanistan, after the US Drudge Report broke the blackout that UK media had agreed on with the Ministry of Defence.

A deal had been made between British media and the Ministry of Defence not to report on Prince Harry's frontline position, for fear that he may become a privileged target for Talibans, in return for access to the prince during his deployment.

According to the Guardian, the story had already been broken by Australian women's magazine New Idea on Jan. 7. In fact, many insiders are surprised the blackout lasted two months.

Significantly though, UK media only decided to run the story after it was broken by US news blogger Drudge, showing how much influence he has acquired. Yesterday, nearly all of the national newspapers, except for The Independent, ran the story on their front page.

"I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us," said Sir General Dannatt, head of the British Army.

"This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number of overseas outlets, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations."

Should Drudge have broken the news? Should UK media have agreed to the blackout for so long? In any case, this story illustrates the powerful effects of Web 2.0: one influential blogger's scoop can lead to a massive reaction for all traditional media.

Prince Harry is expected to be taken off the front now that the news has been broken.

Source: Brand Republic - Guardian