You will get no argument with me regarding Drudge and I apologize if I however unintentially;referred to Drudge as "media" or in anyway gave the impression I found him to be legitimate.
My questions were more in regards to the actual news sources who followed suit after Drudge reported the story. I mean how many people actually read Drudge? Nevermind, probably too many.
I wanted to use this story as an example of how ethics seems to have disappeared from our journalistic endevours (not all). As Austin pointed out, after this story Prince Harry's life is in great danger even with him being back home. As will be anyone who is within a certain amount of distance from him. Even if a slug like Drudge decided to run the story did MSN have to follow? along with all the other major outlets?
I'm a firm believer in first amendment rights and a publics right to know. However in this case there was no impact on the public so why did we have to know? Harry isn't running for office, he isn't a chosen celebrity, he was just doing his job and now his life has been put in peril because the media knows this story will sell.
SM- I concur with you regarding the internet. I guess what we have really lost is a ingrained ethic within ourselves and our society.
