Some people lob softball questions. Jon Friedman lobs softball arguments. Like this one, where he claims the British press' blackout of all "Prince Harry is in Afghanistan" news damaged the public's eroding trust of media.
The argument goes that it was in Britain's national interest to keep Prince Harry's whereabouts hidden. What bollocks! Sorry, but this doesn't seem like a case of national security. I don't believe the enemy would have tried harder to kill Harry and the soldiers near him if they knew where he was positioned.
And, in a twist of logic straight out of "Catch-22," are they tacitly saying that Harry's life is more important than that of any other courageous soldier in combat around the world?
Wrong. And yes. (Does Friedman not realize the much more severe the political impact – and potential rallying point of insurgents – a royal's death would have?)
Had the situation been an American one – if Jenna Bush were fighting overseas, for example – Friedman wonders how domestic media would've handled things.
I wonder how the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC would have handled this kind of challenge.
True, the American media have been known to protect the privacy of famous offspring, too. Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and the Bush twins were largely kept out of the media because they rarely did anything newsworthy.
Well, ABC has a history of ignoring press embargoes, like it did by reporting the results of a cancer study a day before it was requested; CBS has a history of condemning ABC for doing so ("completely inappropriate" a CBS spokesperson said at the time). And, at least when it comes to trivial matters like book publishing embargoes, the New York Times could give a crap. (For what it's worth, Matt Drudge, who is falsely credited with breaking the Prince Harry news, ridicules embargoes.)
But of matters of import? As the Times itself reports, when President Bush visited Iraq on Thanksgiving Day in 2003, reporters were asked not to publish reports until after he returned to the U.S. The NYT, and nearly all media outlets we could find, went along with it.
So that about answers your question, Friedman.
OUT OF THE LOOP How does the New York Times handle coverage of Prince Harry's location being revealed, and the British press' agreement to the embargo? By revealing their reporters didn't have a damn clue what was going on: "American newspapers including The New York Times were not made aware of the British press blackout." Even the Taliban knew he was there.
The blogs are in a tizzy over photos like these of recent troop withdrawal Prince Harry, who spent 10 weeks in Afghanistan only to be forced home by Matt Drudge's "exclusive" item that trumped the British press' embargo. In exchange for keeping quiet, the UK papers were promised access to be used after his safe return home.
Now that he's back early, he's been quickly reduced to beefcake status. Where he belonged. CONTINUED »
It's another shiny day for Matt Drudge, the political and weather headline blogger. Not only is he getting the write-around treatment from the Daily Telegraph, a la New York magazine, but he's also being hailed as a friend to journalism in some circles. If it weren't for his blaring typeface, Prince Harry's stint in Afghanistan may have never come to light, or at least not so soon, since the entire British press was in cahoots never to tell the public about it. Or: Drudge is a self-serving douchebag, who'd rather score more pageviews than protect the safety of a royal.
Prince Harry's drunk face is hotter than his brother's. They should upgrade him from spare to heir.
Prince William’s drunken shenanigans remind us that underneath the crown, millions of pounds and dozens of royal estates, he’s really just a regular guy who can’t hold his liquor or onto his hair.
P.S. For our money, Prince Harry’s drunk-face is hotter.
The datestamp may read 2007, but for all intents and purposes, it might as well be 1997.
When Princess died ten years ago, there was a general outcry against the paparazzi for chasing after the pictures the public itself was so desperate for.
Ten years later, photographers are still being blamed for car accidents caused by drug use. But some things have changed since Princess Diana died. While William still stands to inherit the throne, Harry has emerged as the new hot prince.
Let’s be honest, the past ten years have not been good to William. His face has begun to look more equine and he has inherited the Windsor comb over.
More analysis, after the jump.
• Prince Harry likes it when his girlfriend calls him "Big Ginger." Kinky!
• Guests of Eva Longoria and Tony Parker's wedding have an extra swag-ger in their step.
• There's nothing sleazy billionaire Ron Perelman likes more than pining away for his 7th grade crush sailing on his yacht with platonic friend Gina Gershon.
• Steven Spielberg is living in constant fear of his grandmother's chaise lounge.
• “I love big boobs on a woman,” admits a totally heterosexual John Travolta. “So I wanted [my character] Edna [Turnblad] to have them. My boobs and butt got a lot of attention on the set. The whole crew kept coming over and groping me. The scary thing is, I liked it.”
• Brandy takes a backseat to her porn star brother while waiting for that whole vehicular manslaughter thing to pan out.
"Concert for Diana features music fit for a princess!" proclaims the NYYDN.
Assuming a princess would enjoy a six and a half hour marathon of Fergie's warbling voice (fortunately muted, thanks to technical difficulties) a recycled version of Diddy's tribute to B.I.G., the musical stylings of a still-drunk Lily Allen and heartfelt performances of Kanye West's "Gold Digger" and Pharrell's "Drop It Like It's Hot."
Not to mention a completely literal interpretation of 50 Cent's lyrics, "We gonna party like it's your birthday."
Rest in peace, D.
[via DN]
Hey, William and Harry? Did you know you were famous? Like, even people on this side of the Atlantic know who you are? Tumultuous news, we know. Thank god Matt Lauer is there to walk you through it.
You know Matt Lauer, don't you? He's the serious journalist who would never stoop so low as to conduct a cheap celebrity interview. Except here. Oh, and in the above.
"Frankly it is ludicrous," says an unnamed BBC industry observer in London's Evening Standard, "that a major interview with the sons of the Princess of Wales is not conducted by a proper journalist." That's the reaction that's been repeated by many industry onlookers (or so we're led to believe) over the BBC's decision to choose Radio 1's 25-year-old Fearne Cotton (a self-described "mouthy little girl") instead of, say, Huw Edwards.
The interview, of course, comes during the lead up to the 10th anniversary of Princess Diana's death — leading some in the news biz to think this type of interview would be conducted as a piece of serious journalism instead of, say, a celebrity puff piece.
"In contrast," reports the paper, "the American TV network NBC selected its veteran broadcaster Matt Lauer, 49, to interview the princes." Ah yes, Matt Lauer, who's never done a celebrity shtick piece in his life.
• Shockingly, Prince Harry (currently second-in-line to the British royal throne) will not be deployed to Iraq as per his request.
• Phil Spector hates women. Perhaps that's why he (allegedly!) killed one?
• Turns out Miss Jay (of America's Next Top Model/Jossip "fame") is even crazier than he/she looks!
• Times' Op-Ed columnist Nicholas Kristof denies plagiarizing from a lesser-known, lesser-educated author.
• Hey, remember back in 1926 when health experts encouraged women to douche with Lysol? Yeah, neither do we.
• "Diaries reveal [Anna Nicole] Smith's sex life, sadness." Because so far we haven't heard a thing!
We're living in a world where everything has its price. And apparently, the going rate for an interview with Princes William and Harry (a.k.a. "the heir and the spare") is $2.5 million nowadays.
At least, that's what it was worth to the execs over at NBC, who shelled out for the rights to an exclusive chat. Oh, but just to keep things legit, they're technically not paying for the interview per se, but rather, the right to sponsor some bullshit Diana tribute concert with lots of British has-beens and a few almost-but-nots!
NBC News doesn't pay for news, but NBC does. Matt Lauer just interviewed British Princes William and Harry (the heir and the spare) after NBC paid $2.5 million for the "rights" to the Diana tribute concert on July 1.
But, of course, that's not all.
CONTINUED »
• Paris Hilton celebrates her 26th birthday by drunkenly making out with her sometimes-boyfriend and having a shitshow meltdown in front of the toilets.
• Prince Harry insists on being deployed to Iraq. Or else he'll be forced to abdicate his throne think "very nasty thoughts" about British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
• Britney Spears suddenly regrets the crazy, impulsive decision to chop off all her hair; masterfully disguises her handiwork with a well-placed (albeit cheap/tacky) blond wig.
• Barack Obama attempts to solicit the ineligible 13 year old voting demographic on Facebook.
CONTINUED »
• Lindsay Lohan will bring cupcakes and flash a little boob, just to keep her job of doing nothing but partying and shopping. [Gatecrasher]
• If we had the choice between drowning or getting mouth to mouth from Tom Cruise, we'd swallow gulps of saltwater til we sank. Isn't it sad that he used to be our lifeguard fantasy? [Page Six]
• It's Us Weekly, so you never know … but Kate Hudson is reportedly screwing Owen Wilson. She really should be with a funny guy. [Us Weekly]
• The Guardian is sorry. Prince Harry grabbed those titties three years ago. Not last week. It's all their fault. [Guardian]
• How did Rachel Ray ever land a star like Oprah on her show? [People]
Editorial Director
