The revelation that Prince Harry has secretly been on tour in Afghanistan was no revelation to senior executives at British newspapers and broadcasters. For nearly three months they have known about the deployment and observed a strict code of silence.
But the existence of such a deal, struck with the with the Ministry of Defence, raises plenty of questions - was the media failing in its job not to report that the third in line to the throne has been fighting overseas? Or was it entirely justified in keeping quiet in order to protect Harry and his fellow soldiers from potential targeting?
Two of the people involved in striking the deal - the News of the World's Neil Wallis and Bob Satchwell of the Society of Editors - have defended the arrangement.
The level of complicity behind the deal is fascinating. Details of the secret meetings with the MoD reveal that Harry's return to the UK - and therefore when the story would break - was likely to be timed for a Friday so that TV, daily and weekend newspapers could all get their slice of the story.
This was the carrot required to ensure silence in those parts of the media who might be tempted to break ranks. Back in May, when Harry was prevented from going to Iraq, the army blamed the likely media frenzy. By asking for the media's silence this time round, the army was hoping the prince could serve in safety and complete a 14-week tour.
After the story broke globally yesterday, on the US news website the Drudge Report, the UK media held off until confirmation from the MoD.
It's hard to draw a moral line in the sand in the internet age of gossip websites and blogs. It's a surprise that the story wasn't broken much sooner - which makes the idea of a deal all the more bizarre.
