They report there was a complete press blackout, how an Australian paper (New Idea and Bild) first reported the news and then how Matt Drudge headlined the "secret" and it became common knowledge.
One specific section in this report caught my eye though:
The embargo was almost exclusively a British one, although The Associated Press, Reuters and CNN also joined the agreement. American newspapers including The New York Times were not made aware of the British press blackout.
Americans have constantly seen report after report from the U.S. media that has published leaked information time and time again. In 2006, it was the subject of a Washington Post piece and in January of 2008 there were reports of polls on how little the America public trusted the mainstream media.
The New York Times themselves have committed some of the most egregious offenses, in one particular example they even published a video from the front lines of war, showing a dying soldier and they did this without the family's consent or prior notice to the family.
That particular embedded journalists lost his embed status for that for breaking the rules that journalists sign on the dotted line to follow when embedding.
Another example of irresponsibility on the part of New York Times, was the highly publicized case where, in December 2001, Times reporters learned of plans to freeze the assets of Holy Land Foundation and the Global Relief Foundation, and the Times reporter called the group for comment shortly before FBI agents raided the offices, endangering the lives of the law enforcement officials.
In that case U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald demanded the sources of the original leak that endangered lives, the Times reporters, Judtith Miller and Philip Shenon, refused and resulted in the Supreme Court getting involved and refusing to block the government from reviewing telephone records of two Times reporters.
The majority of the American media can learn a great lesson from the British press in this instance.... there are times where Security does and should outweigh the people's right to know.
Today’s media are widely perceived to be cutthroat, sensationalistic and anti-authoritarian, yet hundreds of journalists, including those in London’s rabid tabloid culture, kept the deployment secret for close to three months.
Can you imagine the U.S. newspaper reporters keeping anything a secret for three months? I cannot blame the Brits at all for not trusting Prince Harry's life to the American media.
[Update] Is it any surprise that Americans are turning more and more to the Web to get their news and not depending on the MSM?