|
home : best of bloggerheads : photoshopping : rupert murdoch : mps and weblogs : email tim ireland : search engine optimisation : viral marketing : weblog marketing |
|
| Bloggerheads Archives :: welcome to the hard shell | |
|
to front page to date archives to category archives national service © Tim Ireland 2009 Design by Wibbler RSS | RSD | Atom |
|
|
« Joseph Obi and bits and bobs | Main | Neil Clark: how to waste public money by trying to keep your personal mistakes private » February 29, 2008OMFG! EXCLUSIVE!!: New Idea blows Prince Harry's cover while Matt Drudge claims the exclusive and compounds the errorBy now you're all aware that Prince Harry has been fighting in Afghanistan (gunning down other human beings in much the same way that most normal people do) and that there was an agreement for it not be reported by the media. You are probably also aware that the carrot that was dangled to ensure the integrity of the embargo was This morning, there is an undignified rush to use that material in almost every newspaper. Classy. The Independent, by contrast, uses a single image on page 3 alongside this article: Independent - Prince's cover in Afghanistan blown by Drudge Report: An American website, the Drudge Report, broke a news blackout yesterday by revealing that Prince Harry has been serving in Afghanistan for more than two months. To the fury of the Ministry of Defence and condemnation from the head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, the website announced a "world exclusive" and proclaimed: "They're calling him 'Harry the Hero!"... It is thought the source for the Drudge Report article was a story printed last month in an Australian women's magazine, New Idea. Back-pats to the Indy for this, and for not falsely describing Drudge as a 'blogger'. Brick-bats to New Idea and Matt Drudge... oh, and well-known Drudge-wannabe Paul Staines*. What Drudge did was take something that had been previously reported by regional ragsters who claimed to be unaware of the embargo, and used that to knowingly break the embargo... while screaming 'EXCLUSIVE'. And now the eyes of the world are upon him, Matt Drudge is getting greedy. Below is the article published by Drudge yesterday. The text in bold is the paragraph that he has since deleted:
Not that the people at New Idea have any complaints; they themselves are busy rewriting history today.... and here's why: The Australian - New Idea, no idea of Harry embargo: New Idea had no idea it was breaking an embargo when it revealed on its website that Prince Harry was fighting in Afghanistan. The weekly magazine has been criticised by a British army chief for leaking the news of the young royal's frontline deployment, which was subject to a strict media blackout. A German newspaper and then US website the Drudge report picked up the story this week. With the ban broken, the story has received intensive coverage in Britain and around the world. The story was published on New Idea's website on January 7, said editor-in-chief Robyn Foyster. SMH - No idea: New Idea in the dark about Harry blackout: An Australian women's magazine has denied deliberately breaching a media news blackout about Prince Harry's deployment to Afghanistan. New Idea is at the centre of a storm in Britain, accused of leaking the news the 23-year-old prince is fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan and potentially putting his life in danger. The magazine published a story about Harry's secret tour of duty on its website in January in an apparent breach of a strict media blackout on the story. It appears few noticed the story. It was only after US website the Drudge Report picked up the story and broadcast it around the world, after a German newspaper ran a piece yesterday, that the storm blew up. [Psst! "Woman's magazine" is putting it kindly; New Idea (nicknamed 'No Idea' long before this debacle) is a trashy supermarket tabloid.] Now, while everyone else is revelling in their ability to use material that was previously embargoed until April, New Idea has decided to 'disappear' the items in question. If you visit either of these URLs, the original teaser and article will not appear; instead, on both pages, you'll get a bog-standard bio of Prince Harry (that's been put together so hurriedly that the picture fails to load)... So now, +++ EXCLUSIVELY +++ at Bloggerheads (via the cached pages stored by Google and Live Search), I present the two original items in full:
No idea there was an embargo? What does the word 'covert' mean to these people? Here's the article that followed that teaser a week later:
Again, reading what has been published (and since 'disappeared'), one might get the impression that - even if New Idea didn't know of the embargo - they certainly should have noticed the alarm bells in their own damn article! Which might be why that article and the teaser have been removed; New Idea's statement on the matter reads as follows: "New Idea was not issued with a press embargo and was unaware of the existence of one... The story was published on Monday, January 7. Since then New Idea has received no comment from the British Ministry of Defence. We take these matters very seriously and would never knowingly break an embargo. We regret any issues the revelation of this story in America has caused today." Scroll up and read the article again. Try to work out how it was planned for at least a week, researched, penned and published without anyone involved becoming aware of the merest possibility of a hint of an embargo. And, if you're of the opinion that New Idea knowingly breached the embargo and find yourself wondering why, there's a subtle hint in the closing line of each item... Full details on this breaking story in this week's New Idea So now it's New Idea with a secret they'd rather the media didn't report. Share at will. [*Paul Staines happily ran with the outing and there are suggestions from anonymous readers (or from Staines himself; sometimes it's hard to tell) that Staines knew all about it, and even dropped hints. What a guy. He inspires me to drop hints myself from time to time because, as Staines notes here, if you dish it out...] UPDATE - Hahahahahaha! Great input from Anorak. UPDATE - Many comments under this ABC article. New Idea gets a repeated kicking. UPDATE - Staines nearly trips over himself trying to get in on the action. UPDATE - PM on Radio 4 this afternoon (from 5pm); "Tonight on the programme, we'll trace the origins of the story. " Top stuff. UPDATE - That programme tracked the earliest press mention back to the ever-reliable News Of The World (on June 3, 2007 IIRC). Indigo Red has documented some of the reports that followed that, and it would appear that The Observer also carried an item on that same day. I don't have confirmation on this, but my gut is telling me that this early coverage (published long before Harry went to Afghanistan) is pre-embargo, and may even have triggered the embargo. Posted by Manic on February 29, 2008 10:34 AM in the category Old Media Pings (Trackback)For trackbacks, this is the URL: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference OMFG! EXCLUSIVE!!: New Idea blows Prince Harry's cover while Matt Drudge claims the exclusive and compounds the error:
» No Idea at New Idea from The Daily Bayonet Tracked on February 29, 2008 1:38 PM Comments Shocking ;P Posted by: Jherad at February 29, 2008 11:37 AM - Ha! Agreed. But how come none of the media outlets have commented on the fact the a senior British royal and army officer is interviewed wearing a baseball cap with an American flag on it??!! Truly the Brits are America's whipping dog perhaps - see what I mean: http://www.theweatherfront.com/daily-weather-blog/weather-beaten-harry-stars-stripes-usa-baseball-cap Posted by: Spanners at February 29, 2008 12:02 PM - Not the first time the young prince has experienced wardrobe-related difficulty, Spanners. Posted by: Manic at February 29, 2008 2:23 PM - Nicely done Harry! Now check out THESE CLOWNS... THE LEAST BELIEVABLE MOVIE SOLDIERS! http://www.maxim.com/Theleastbelievablemoviesoldiers/articles/2/19095.aspx?src=tstlbs
Posted by: reed at February 29, 2008 4:21 PM - Tch. Under a post about how old media conduct themselves, I get comment-spammed by Maxim magazine. In high-caps, no less. Who's the clown? [The IP address used by 'reed' to submit the previous comment was 63.144.166.5 - look it up yourself if you like.] Posted by: Manic at February 29, 2008 4:33 PM - I think I'll give Brize Norton a miss for breakfast and settle for my usual bacon sandwich. BTW, congrats in getting Guardian Best of the Web, sometimes I shake my head and wonder why some of the entries achieve this. Not on this occasion. It's well deserved. Posted by: jailhouselawyer at February 29, 2008 4:49 PM - Cheers, JHL. Posted by: Manic at February 29, 2008 4:55 PM - Re links to Staines, for future reference, try e.g., Posted by: mikkimoose at March 1, 2008 12:41 AM - Thanks, mikkimoose. Will give it a try, even if it's just to see if Staines is childish enough to redirect those, too. Posted by: Manic at March 1, 2008 1:40 PM - Post a commentThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you're new to Bloggerheads, you may need to be approved by the moderator before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) | |