Since last week's news that Prince Harry (left) was taking part in frontline military operations in Afghanistan, many are wondering why the media agreed to such a long and unanimous blackout. Was it a successful public relations stunt pulled off by the British Ministry of Defence? Did the media and newspapers fail to carry out their news mission by agreeing to the blackout? A little of both, surely.

In the Guardian, Bob Satchell, executive editor of the Society of Editors in the UK, tries explaining the decision.

"It was an extraordinary and rare display of unity for national and regional newspaper and magazine editors and broadcasters not to report the story," he writes. This can be considered positive, as a sign of cohesion among media outlets. It is also disturbing, for that same reason.

According to Satchwell, journalists "were anxious that it (the blackout) might dilute their future credibility with the public." But Satchwell argues that the blackout actually led to improved coverage, since the media traded their secret against privileged embedded access to the prince.

Not everybody buys that argument though and Bob Steele of the Poynter Institute in the US strongly contests the media's decision.

"It's their long-term collusion with the government that so seriously undermines the media's credibility in this case.

"The reasons for withholding the news were not justifiable. The time period was inappropriately long. The collaborative agreement among many news agencies was counter to the spirit of an independent press."

According to Guardian columnist Peter Wilby, "it's just a blatant PR stunt."

"To my mind, this was propaganda for a war of dubious legitimacy and declining public popularity." Undoubtedly, news of Prince Harry's deployment was widely echoed throughout the media, usually with positive luster both for the royal family and the war.

"Harry and the Gurkhas give the Taliban a pasting," announced the Express. He was "fighting the fanatics", according to the Daily Mail. And so on.

As previously argued, another bigger winner of the Prince Harry blackout is the Drudge Report (and new independent media in general), who forced traditional media to follow after breaking the news.

In the end, readers will be the ones to decide whether the blackout was justified, and how deeply this case will affect media's credibility.

Source: Guardian (here, here and here) - New York Times (picture) - Poynter Institute