Why did the Drum grasp the nettle on Prince Harry?

Well put Gordon, it's unfortunate that this aspect of your argument wasn't presented when you first published the pics which I beleive is why The Drum came under such criticism (the vocal readership that you have). So the question will possibly remain, was The Drum caught up in the sensationalism given you are a smaller publication and able to fly under the radar, and is this therefore a clever piece of post rationalisation? I personally hope not, and am far more interested in who won the party swim race, Harry or Lochte.

What a load of codswallop!! You wanted your five minutes of fame!! This was nothing to do with the stories you usually publish as your niche market - I didn't realise you were just another pathetic tabloid.

The trouble with the tabloids, and has been their inevitable downfall, is that there egotistical selves let power go to their head. They are under the impression that we, the public, should be told what to do, what to think, and what to say. One thing that makes my blood boil is somebody saying 'it's in the public interest, people want to see it, people have a right to know' blah de blah. Well screw you! Who are YOU to decide what is in my best interest.

You have become like every other sleaze rag, and that is a shame because I used to really respect The Drum. There was absolutely NO need for you to cover this story, and even if there was, you could have done it without printing the pictures. Sad and pathetic. And don't hide behind the whole 'oh, we were just reporting about not being able to report' bollocks. Because it's all bollocks.

I hope you enjoyed your five minutes of fame. And I hope it was worth it. Personally I think you've done some terrible damage to your brand.

Sorry Gordon, I disagree. Report it, but don't sensationalise it. I really thought the Drum was 'industry' 'trade' stuff. This isn't and I'm disappointed in you. My personal thoughts maybe, but I'll look at the Drum i a different light from today.

Hmm I posted a comment earlier and it didn't send me a verification email...

Bollocks Gordon! You did this to publicise 'The Drum' didn't u? Brilliant .... Friday is jobs day in Scotland and you have a jobs site too .... now 'By Royal Appointment'! As for Prince Harry he can perhaps be consoled that he is helping unemployed squaddies find jobs in the media using global billiard balls. I think that might be a better defence as u fight extradition? PS Does Ecuador have a consulate yet in Aberdeen I wonder. But good to hear too that you are covering 'The Pussy Riots'.

It is reidiculous to claim there is no publilc interest in this story. The basic story is about he behavious of the royal family.As long a s we have such a thing and its role is to be a figurehead for the country the behaviour of its members is as much "pubilc interest" as that of any major public figure. The public interest widens into that of the role of the minders and whether mobile phones should have been allowd in. Harry is also a solider and though teh military are not doing anythign about his behaiour they have said its not a major breach of regulations, impying they accept is however an breach of them. Publilc interest lies in why he gets "let off" ina way another soldier might not. Wider still the story is now about censorhsip, press freedom, privacy laws, Leveson and social media. Frankly there are few stories about in the papers that display anything like as much pubic interest as this.

Disgusting that you published these photos. I am unsubscribing from this site.

Disgusting that you published these photographs. They are not in the public's interest at all. I am as a result unsubscribing from this site.

I am disappointed that you covered this story. Similarly to the above comment, I thought you were about industry and trade stuff. It is not in the public's interest to have harmless private photographs of a public figure. Lets hope the coverage you got for running the story outweighs the damage you have done to your brand by running it.

Agree with other comments - what a load of bollocks. Firstly, no issue with you having an opinion on the story - that is what a free press is about, but that does legitimise publishing the pictures. Secondly, what exactly was prince Harry doing that makes this a public interest story? He is a young guy, on holiday with some friends, having fun with some girls - hold the front page!!!???? the fact he is a member of the royal family is totally irrelevant. Thirdly, he has the rightly to privacy - legally and morally (although we all know the Sun does not care about that but thought better of The Drum). Finally, there is absolutely no comparison between this case and what is happening in Russia with Pussy Riot, and to suggest so is grossly insulting. I agree wholeheartedly with Pussy Riots freedom to express, for journalists to use the same defence in this case simply confirms their stupidity.

Shame on you.

BESIDES the fact that you could still have written the story and not published the pictures, but I guess then it wouldn't have got the press it did...

A young man engaging in entirely legal sexual behaviour in a private hotel room should be entitled to all the rights to privacy we would all hope to enjoy, whether royal or not.

There is no public interest in this story, other than the attention seeking and prurient. You (and the Sun) were entirely wrong to publish these photos, and your arguments that 'they are already all over the web' and 'they are in the public interest' are specious and deeply flawed.

This article demonstrates why the DRUM's journalism is rightly sneered at. To conflate this non-story with your feeble 'coverage' of the Pussy Riot trial simply beggars belief. The only commonality is that both stories are witless and poorly written.

This is utter nonsense. You did it to get clicks. And reading the lengthy, barely coherent comments on both articles, you succeeded. The shame is The Drum is supposed to be a trade publication, not a sensationalist muck-raking tabloid. Choosing to publish pictures of a naked bloke is nothing to do with freedom of expression or public interest. The idea that the UK public somehow has the right to see a member of the Royal family naked is bizarre and disturbing. It's pretty offensive that you mention it in the same breath as the Pussy Riot case and I would have expected better from you.

Major mistake on your part here, Gordon. As an industry commentator you certainly should be talking about the issues of press freedom, intrusive journalism, impact of Leveson etc etc. But you didn't need to publish the photographs and claiming that you're doing that in the public interest is just risible. We can all look online to find them if we really feel the need and by publishing them you've gone down into the gutter, without any justification.

Is this the new novel 50 shades of Ginger

I respect The Drum and I agree... why wouldn't you publish them? It's only because The Sun is the only paper to put them into print that it seems to be 'a tabloid move'. You'd see it differently if The Times put them out there. Having all the information available when putting a story out there means everyone is on the same page. Now you've seen the pictures, instead of getting uppity about it, why not make up your own mind about Harry's behaviour and be done with it. The people at fault here are the stupid girls who published the photos in the first place, and perhaps Harry's minders for not keeping a full eye on the situation.

As if you all hadn't googled the pics anyway...

Absolute rubbish. These pictures were published to draw attention, and the Sun have followed suit.

The "story of the story" is not about a cowed UK media, it is a story of a media that is starting to understand the difference between private and public life. Or at least a set of Editors that understand that the public are fed up with their past behaviour.

Let's get back to marketing, and recall that great slogan by the Las Vegas tourism bosses, "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". And with no laws broken, everything happening in the privacy of a hotel room, that is what should have happened with this story.

If the unelected sponger doesn't want to be appearing in the media him and his parasitic family should fuck off.

"Man gets naked with woman in a hotel room" - not earth-shattering. Hey ho - at least we know the blue blooder will keep the blood line going albeit hopefully not with loose Vegas lassies.

I call bullshit. This isn't anything to do with freedom of press or public interest; it's another horribly transparent self-publicity stunt by the Youngs. I'm embarrassed for you both.

I feel sorry for the talented members of The Drum's editorial staff who, no doubt, will be the ones picking up the pieces today after the publication of both of these pathetic, self-aggrandising stories.

The Drum has no place in this story and you have done some serious damage to your brand by thinking that your opinion is what matters. Why not stick to being a trade publication? That way you might not push the rest of your readership away.

I agree with The Drum. This is a public interest story because taxpayers' money is being used to protect this bozo while he enjoys Vegas VIP treatment during an economic recession. It's important that the public knows what their money is being spent on.

Think i need to comment on this,

I dont think the Drum should have covered this as i dont see the Drum covering mainstream. Its about creative, marketing and digital.

Fine reference it but not a piece as it has devalued from a few of the comments what we expect the drum to cover.

However the story is in the public interest if were funding it. They should not have published photos though as i see that as stepping over the mark and this is where the line has been crossed to sensulise the story where its just not needed

Have we the tax payer paid for him? If not leave him alone. If we are paying for it then its right he should be shamed for squandering money. Now im sure this will get me some flack but its my opinion as there are several valid points both sides.

Many will claim this was a private matter, but his family IS supported out of the public purse -- or have you never heard of the Crown Estate of Scotland which helps supported the Royal Family? If even a pence of public money went into this tasteless escapade, then it is very much a matter of public interest. Otherwise it is merely a matter of a man who IS old enough to know better behaving like an idiot. He is a public figure and the idiotic behavior of public figures is often reported upon. I see no reason why he is so "special" that he should be protected from the results of his own acts.

Furthermore, there is a tradition going back centuries of protecting the Royal Family from the results of their own behavior by not reporting it. The gentleman is a very short distance from the throne. THAT is the only reason it was reported upon, and frankly, I am quite convinced it is the only reason there are people here who are objecting. Some British are not any too fond of the Royal Family having a bright light shining upon the Royal Family's sometimes rather low class behavior. But in this day in age, the truth does tend to out, my friends. Harry is a bit of a tosser and if you're British you just have to suck it and and live with that the world knows.

I am please that you published these anodyne photos. It doesn't matter whether the decision was principled or commercial. A high profile publicly funded member of the "these days" sacred Royal Family (cf 25 years ago; annus horibilis) behaves in a juvenile fashion and is careless enough to let his friends photograph it. Big deal! It is in the public interest for us to see that these royals are nothing special. The pics demonstrate this in a way that a description of them never could.

loubi12650, I haven't seen a huge outpouring of adoration for him, except some men who seem to think that acting badly is their right. Nor did you answer my first question: How much public money does this man get for his unbecoming antics? He IS a celebrity (through nothing he did to earn it but he is) and these days what they do will become public knowledge. Maybe it's time his granny had a stern talk with him if she didn't after he was parading around in a Nazi uniform.

It's because of this daring publication, I now know this website exists! Well done for standing up for freedom- the Drum! I'm subscribing...

The furore seems to have passed and the press have had their value out of it (which, let's be honest is the main reason for publishing pics of Ginger nuts). However, I'm struck by the hypocrisy of the Drum and their 'selective' band-waggonism. If you are going to set yourselves up as 'champions of free speech', campaigning for Pussy riots and publishing images of Royalty, that's fine, but practice what you preach. Where have all the comments regarding England Agency and their demise gone? Personally, I didn't comment on the forum but around 60 people did and now their voices have been stifled. Was the Drum threatened with litigation? Capitulation to such pressure is at odds with the current crusade.