A Mute Media

As I've probably commented once or twice since beginning this blog, my view of the royal family is indifferent, at best, & disdainful, at worst. I make no secret of the fact that I'm a republican. All the available evidence points to the conclusion that Britain would be financially, socially & psychologically improved if the Monarchy ceased to exist; it is little more than a feudal relic which somehow managed to survive into the industrial age.
So my take on the admission that Harry Windsor [Hewitt?] has been winning the war against the Taliban single-handed is coupled with my contempt for the UK media for agreeing to a news blackout while he was in Afghanistan.
As Jon Snow remarked bemusedly in response to the news, thank goodness for the Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com ). Even though it is a neo-con blog in the States, Drudge followed up the story from an Australian magazine last month with its own account:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashph.htm .
The British media has once again proved itself to be a lapdog for the establishment, happy to roll over & let its tummy be tickled. Sadly, both the BBC & the Guardian were part of the cover-up. In fact, the BBC's coverage last night, replete with fawning royal correspondents & sub Boys Own doggerel masquerading as script, made me question whether the licence fee really is such a good thing after all.
Peter Wilby, the New Statesman columnist, rightly criticises the media for their part in the deal to sit on the story:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_wilby/2008/02/harrys_game.html .
However, I take issue with Wilby's accusation that the media have been "suckered" by the MoD. The media is not a victim in this squalid scenario. Rather, it is an equally complicit partner.