I was delayed in London due to weather issues, so had a chance to watch first hand the uproar and press coverage over the fact that Prince Harry had been in Afghanistan and that the British media had known about it/agreed to keep it secret. While that's mildly surprising given the reputation of the fleet street media, what's more surprising is that it worked as long as it did. After all, we are living in an era where anyone with a cell phone can function as an AP photographer of sorts, and where secrets have an increasingly short lifespan. So the fact that the secret held for 10 weeks -- wow.
This story is likely to spur a round of pretty serious self examination on the part of the media, both those who participated in the embargo, and those who did not. The key question will be (and should) examine the role of the media and the way it cooperates with various governments, and what role self policing by the press should play. I'm always pretty skeptical of embargoes in general, and wrote a while ago about the three situations where I think they might make sense. This case is even more complicated, because it's not just a company asking a reporter for a fixed deadline, it's a government asking for a pretty much open timeline.
My sense is that a clear-eyed look back will show the press they made a mistake. IMHO, it's a credibility hit to the mainstream media at a time when they really don't need any self-inflicted wounds.