Julian Petley material leaked by on which the newspaper was working. According to Rusbridger: ‘The tone was steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian approach.’ The following month he received a phone call from the ‘centre of government’ telling him: ‘You’ve had your fun. Now we want the stuff back.’ Other meetings followed with shadowy Whitehall figures, in which the same demand was repeated. At one of these, Rusbridger was told: ‘You’ve had your debate. There’s no need to write any more.’ The state journalism This is chilling enough, but even more so is is in: Edward revelation that: Snowden and the During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government would move to British press close down ’s reporting through a legal route – by going to court to force the This paper examines the reactions on the part surrender of the material on which we were of the government and much of the British working. The official confirmed that, in the national press to Edward Snowden’s revela- absence of handover or destruction, this was tions in the Guardian about massive surveillance indeed the government’s intention. Prior by Government Communications Headquar- restraint, near impossible in the US, was now ters (GCHQ) and the National Security Agen- explicitly and imminently on the table in the cy (NSA). It argues that the revelations were UK (Rusbridger 2013). politically embarrassing as opposed to damag- ing to national security, and that although the And so it was that on Saturday 20 July, in a government could be expected to adopt a hos- deserted basement of the newspaper’s offices, tile attitude to the Guardian, it might appear a senior editor and a Guardian computer expert strange that newspapers such as the Sun, Mail smashed up the hard drives and memory chips and Telegraph did likewise, effectively backing on which the encrypted files leaked by Snowden calls for the paper to be prosecuted. However, had been stored. They were watched by such a stance is surprising only if one regards technicians from Government Communications such newspapers as conforming to a ‘Fourth Headquarters (GCHQ) who took notes and Estate’ model of journalism. This paper argues photographs, but who left empty-handed, one that they, along with most of the rest of the of them joking that ‘we can call off the black British national press, are actually a key part of helicopters’ (ibid). the Establishment rather than a watchdog over it. It is, therefore, entirely unsurprising that ‘Promoting a political or ideological cause’ when the government and the security services On Sunday 18 August, David Miranda, the declare that a particular example of journalistic partner of , the Guardian activity endangers ‘national security’ or dam- journalist who had written a series of stories ages the ‘national interest’, most newspapers based on Snowden’s revelations, was held for accept this judgement without demur, and act almost nine hours (the maximum amount of accordingly. time permitted by law) by UK authorities as he passed through Heathrow on his way home to Keywords: Snowden, Guardian, Rusbridger, Rio de Janeiro. He was questioned under the national security, GCHQ Terrorism Act 2000, the highly controversial section 7 of which allows police officers to stop, ‘There’s no need to write any more’ search, question and detain individuals at ports, In June 2013, Guardian editor airports and border areas. He was eventually was contacted by someone whom he describes released, but officials confiscated electronics as ‘a very senior government official claiming equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, to represent the views of the prime minister’. camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games There followed two meetings in which the consoles. official demanded the return or destruction of all the (NSA)

ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 9 Julian Petley The legality of the police action was queried As we shall see, this was by no means the first both by the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, time that the phone-hacking hare had been set and condemned as being without legal basis running during the Snowden affair, but what is by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer. interesting here is that Cameron’s reply: In November, Miranda launched a challenge (a) shows that the Guardian had been put in a in the High Court. At the time of writing this Catch-22 situation by agreeing to destroy the is continuing, but it has already flushed into computers; the open a particularly disturbing aspect of his (b) and appears to encourage one or more detention, namely that the document used to select committees to investigate whether the request it stated that ‘the disclosure or threat of Guardian had broken the law. Cameron replied: disclosure [of the material that he was carrying] is designed to influence a government, and I commend my Right Hon. Friend for raising is made for the purpose of promoting a the issue. I think the plain fact is that political or ideological cause. This, therefore, what has happened has damaged national falls within the definition of terrorism and as security, and in many ways the Guardian such we request that the subject is examined itself admitted that when, having been asked under schedule 7’. As Shami Chakrabarti, politely by my national security adviser and director of Liberty, commented: ‘The express Cabinet Secretary to destroy the files that admission that politics motivated the detention it had, it went ahead and destroyed those of David Miranda should shame police and files. It knows that what it is dealing with is legislators alike. It’s not just the schedule 7 dangerous for national security. I think that detention power that needs urgent overhaul, it is up to Select Committees in the House but a definition of terrorism that should chill to examine the issue if they wish to do so, the blood of any democrat’ (Doward 2013). and to make further recommendations Nonetheless, when Assistant Commissioner (Cameron 2013a). Cressida Dick, Scotland Yard’s head of counter- terrorism, appeared before the Commons ‘McCarthyite scaremongering’ Home Affairs select committee on 13 December In a parliamentary debate on 22 October, 2013, she revealed that the police were still Julian Smith, Conservative MP for Skipton and combing through the material seized from Rippon, launched a lengthy, innuendo-laden Miranda to ascertain whether any offences may and inaccuracy-strewn attack on the Guardian. have been committed under the Official Secrets In it Smith paid handsome tribute to ‘our or Terrorism Acts. ex-colleague, Louise Mensch, who through her blog, social media and [Sun] columns has Catch-22 ensured that this major national security issue In the meantime, there had been no let-up in has been kept alive throughout’, and Mensch the political pressure on and threats against has repeatedly repaid the compliment in her the Guardian. Indeed, on 20 August the various outpourings on this issue. However, had revealed that Rusbridger’s speech was described by Paul Flynn, Labour MP emissary from the ‘centre of government’ had for Newport West, as ‘a piece of McCarthyite been none other than Britain’s most senior civil scaremongering’ which ‘disgraces parliament’. servant, Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood, According to Smith, the subject of the debate and that the approach took place with the was ‘to highlight where the Guardian has explicit approval of , Nick Clegg crossed the line between responsible journalism and Foreign Secretary William Hague. At prime and seriously risking our national security and minister’s questions, on 16 October, the former the lives of those who seek to protect us’. defence secretary Liam Fox asked Cameron: Such charges are highly contentious, but they

informed the entirety of Smith’s speech, at the May we have a full and transparent end of which he stated that: assessment of whether the Guardian’s involvement in the Snowden affair has The Terrorism Act is clear about the illegality damaged Britain’s national security? Does of communicating information about our my Right Hon. Friend agree that it is bizarre intelligence staff and, specifically, GCHQ. that from some the hacking of a celebrity The Official Secrets Act is equally clear about phone demands a prosecution, whereas the illegality of communicating classified leaving the British people and their security information that the recipient knows, or personnel more vulnerable is seen as has reasonable cause to believe, to be to opening a debate? the detriment of national security. Last week, I wrote to the Metropolitan Police

10 Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Commissioner to ask him to investigate Affairs select committee as part of its enquiry whether the Guardian has breached those into counter-terrorism. As Roy Greenslade two Acts. I urge the Minister to do everything pointed out on 3 December: possible to ensure that the police expedite their investigation (Smith 2013). What was remarkable is that the whole thing happened at all. With the British press In response, James Brokenshire, the having obtained the right to its freedom Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the from political control in the 17th century, Home Department, agreed that the Guardian’s here was parliament calling a newspaper to reporting of the Snowden material had done account for exercising that freedom. Why, ‘huge damage to national security’ and echoed I kept asking myself, was an editor being Cameron in claiming that ‘in many ways, the required to explain himself to MPs? What Guardian admitted that when it agreed to makes them think they have the right to do destroy files when asked to by the Cabinet so? Do they act for the people or against CONFERENCE Secretary, Jeremy Heywood’. However, he also them? (Greenslade 2013). PAPERS added that ‘it is obviously not for ministers to direct the police to arrest or investigate That said, the questioning of Rusbridger by anyone … It is for the police and the Crown Paul Flynn and the Labour MP for Walsall Prosecution Service to determine whether a North, David Winnick, did give Rusbridger crime has been committed and what action to an excellent opportunity to make his case. take’ (ibid). They cannot have been left in much In particular he repeatedly pointed out that, doubt, however, by this and numerous other contrary to the impression given by much of the political interventions, about what actions the press, the Guardian had not identified anyone government would distinctly prefer them to named in the NSA files. Furthermore, he also take. revealed that the DA-Notice committee had not raised any concerns about the published D Notices material (Home Affairs committee 2013). This is Smith cropped up again on 28 October when particularly important in the light of Cameron’s he asked Cameron: ‘Following this morning’s ill-informed remark about D Notices quoted revelations in the Sun [sic] on the impact of the above. Snowden leaks, is it not time for any newspaper that may have crossed the line on national D Notices (strictly Defence Advisory Notices) are security to come forward and voluntarily work issued by the Defence, Press and Broadcasting with the government to mitigate further risks Advisory Committee (DPBAC) which operates to our citizens?’ Cameron’s response was, to a voluntary code between the media and all intents and purposes, to suggest that if the UK government departments which have Guardian did not censor itself, the government responsibilities for national security. According would take on the task: to the DPBAC, the committee and its notices are ‘a means of providing advice and guidance to We have a free press and it is very important the media about defence and counter-terrorist that the press feels it is not pre-censored in information the publication of which would be what it writes. The approach we have taken damaging to national security. The system is is to try to talk to the press and explain how voluntary, it has no legal authority and the final damaging some of these things can be. That responsibility for deciding whether or not to is why the Guardian destroyed some of the publish rests solely with the editor or publisher information on disks it had, although it has concerned’ (DPBAC 2013) although it should now printed further damaging material. be noted that Geoffrey Robertson and Andrew I do not want to have to use injunctions, Nicol condemn it as ‘a form of censorship by D Notices or other, tougher measures; it is wink and nudge, by threat and through the much better to appeal to newspapers’ sense complicity of media executives’ (2008: 657). of social responsibility. However, if they do not demonstrate some social responsibility, On 7 November, the committee met and it will be very difficult for the government to discussed, among other matters, the Snowden stand back and not to act (Cameron 2013b). affair. The minutes of this part of the meeting are worth quoting at some length, not least Finally, in this inevitably highly selective as they appear to have received no media review of political pressure on the Guardian, coverage at all: one cannot ignore the remarkable spectacle of Rusbridger being hauled before the Home Although views were diverse it was agreed

ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 11 Julian Petley that 99 per cent of the media remained Payback committed to the DA Notice system. It was, The first concerns payback for the Guardian’s however, important to distinguish between phone-hacking revelations and the resultant embarrassment and genuine concerns Leveson Inquiry. An early example occurs in a for national security. The Vice-Chairman Mail article by Stephen Glover on 21 August, [Retired Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance] headed ‘That murky arrest troubles me. But felt that much of the material published by the Guardian’s in murky waters where those the Guardian fell into the former category. who love their country should not venture’. It They also understood that the Guardian’s concludes thus: initial unwillingness to engage was due to a misunderstanding of the DA Notice I also can’t help wondering whether the Code and in particular its commitment officers didn’t feel emboldened to throw to confidentiality. The Editor feared that their weight about partly in consequence if he shared details of his story with the of the Leveson Report, which has virtually secretariat it might potentially attract an severed relations between journalists and injunction. Education was required on the police. The Guardian, of course, is almost both sides; the PM’s remarks on 28 October single-handedly responsible for Leveson being an example of misunderstanding on because of its later debunked allegation the government side of how the system that the deleted the operated. He recommended an approach to voicemails of the murdered schoolgirl Milly No. 10 offering a briefing on the DA Notice Dowler. Nor can I help pointing out the system. The Vice-Chairman went on to say newspaper that has shed copious tears for that this lack of understanding seemed to Mr Miranda, held for nine hours, had no such highlight a greater malaise on the official concerns over the interrogation of dozens side where there was worrying evidence of of red-top journalists. Some were arrested disengagement. For example, the DPBAC at dawn in front of their families, deprived Chairman [Jon Thompson, Permanent Under of their computers for months and released Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence] had on bail. Charges won’t be brought against not attended the last two meetings, no some of them. Others will end up in court. Cabinet Office representative was present But even the most culpable among them and the Home Office and FCO [Foreign and never attempted to damage their country. Commonwealth Office] principals had both With friends like Edward Snowden, and sent representatives. By contrast, the media employees such as Glenn Greenwald, that side were well represented and its members is what the Guardian is in danger of doing made significant efforts to attend (D Notice (Glover 2013). 2013). Two days later, a Mail editorial entitled ‘Whiff ‘Statutory control’ of the press of hypocrisy?’ argued that ‘press freedom is During this period, British newspapers an essential right in any democratic society, had loudly and incessantly complained as, but along with rights come responsibilities. indeed, they had done from the start of the The Guardian continues to be vociferous in its announcement of the Leveson Inquiry in July demands for police to pursue tabloid journalists 2011, about the danger of, as they saw it, suspected of acting illegally. Is the paper so ‘statutory control’ of the press. They might, arrogant and hypocritical as to believe it is therefore, have been expected to spring swiftly itself above the law?’ (Daily Mail 2013a). The and vociferously to the Guardian’s defence. following day the same line was taken by the Instead, the Mail, Sun and Telegraph, along Spectator in an article headed ‘The Guardian with the weekly Spectator, did their absolute didn’t care when Murdoch’s journalists were utmost to undermine the newspaper and arrested. So why the hysteria now?’ This stated to bolster the government’s case. And even that: those titles which did not join the attack considerably underplayed both the significance It is good to see the Guardian suddenly of Snowden’s revelations and the impropriety rediscover its interest in the sanctity of a of the government’s pressure on the Guardian. free press. Just five months ago, the paper seemed to have given up on the idea, It is possible to distinguish a number of when it backed the statutory regulation separate themes in the press campaign against of newspapers … When David Cameron’s the Guardian and on behalf of the government, government proposed to bring back state which I will now deal with in turn. licensing of the press, this magazine said

12 Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL it would boycott any such regulator no been charged with precisely nothing, whilst matter what the consequences. We do not many of those accused of phone-hacking have remember Mr Rusbridger rushing to support been both arrested and charged, and, in some us. He seems to have a rather different cases, have already been convicted of criminal test for press freedom: whatever suits his offences as clear-cut as they are serious. newspaper the best. The Leveson report, and the notion of allowing politicians to set the ‘A wall of prejudice’ parameters in which the press can operate, A second theme broadened out the attack on seemed to be quite acceptable to him: after the Guardian to take in other Tory hate objects, all, it would hurt his rivals the most … Press namely the BBC, and, by extension, the ‘liberal- freedom is indeed under threat in Britain. Left’. Entirely unsurprisingly, this was the The Guardian, for all of its proud history, has province of the Mail. It was sparked off by a proven a rather unreliable defender of these speech by the new head of MI5, Andrew Parker, freedoms in recent years — especially when which the Mail decided the BBC failed to cover CONFERENCE it has spotted an opportunity to sock it to in sufficient detail. Thus, on 9 October, in an PAPERS (Spectator 2013). editorial headed ‘The paper that helps Britain’s enemies’, it commented: The theme occurred yet again in an article by Rod Liddle in the Sun, 10 October, which, It is impossible to imagine a graver charge under the headline ‘Guardian treason helping against a newspaper than that it has given terrorists’, pointed out that: succour to our country’s enemies and endangered all our lives by handing terrorists This is the newspaper which has encouraged ‘the gift they need to evade us and strike at state control of the British Press. A will’. Yet so said Andrew Parker, in his first publication which has allied itself with the speech as our spy chief, which yesterday was Hacked Off campaign to restrict the freedom significantly endorsed by No. 10. So isn’t it of what we in the Press can and can’t report. staggering that the BBC, after spending all It was particularly pious about the handful last week trumpeting Ed Miliband’s attack on of cases in which journalists on other papers this paper over our charge that his father’s hacked the phones of members of the public Marxist views validated one of the most evil in order to get stories. The phone hacking regimes in history, could hardly bring itself was unquestionably wrong. But it doesn’t for much of yesterday to report Mr Parker’s compare to what the Guardian has done devastating indictment of the Guardian? (Liddle 2013). The problem, and it’s worse under the new director general, is that a wall of prejudice Louise Mensch took the same line in the tabloid surrounds Broadcasting House – a belief on 13 October, remarking: ‘You know what’s that the Right merits relentless attack, while funny about the Guardian newspaper? They the BBC’s soulmates on the liberal Left must were all for state regulation of the press. The always be protected (Daily Mail 2013b). big cheerleaders for Leveson loved it when the News of the World was closed over illegal Exactly the same line was followed in the same hacking. But when they break the law, they day’s paper by Stephen Glover in a column with screech about press freedom’ (Mensch 2013). the laborious headline: ‘Stupendous arrogance: By risking lives, I say again, the Guardian is The ‘argument’ being deployed in pieces floundering far out of its depth in realms where such as these is so manifestly self-interested no newspaper should venture’. According to and opportunistic as to be barely worth Glover: serious consideration. However, the crucial point that needs to be made is that no The Guardian is being accused of putting meaningful comparison can be made between at risk not only the lives of agents but also the Guardian’s exposure of forms of state potentially the lives of ordinary British surveillance which should be of concern to every people, whom MI5 will now find it more citizen in the land, and the phone-hacking by difficult to protect. Divide the accusations in the News of the World for reasons which had two, and then halve them again, and they are absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the still mind-boggling. So what is the response? public interest. Furthermore, as we have seen, At the time of writing, the all-powerful BBC David Miranda was detained in circumstances has only parenthetically mentioned that the of highly dubious legality and he has thus far newspaper faces very serious charges, and

ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 13 Julian Petley has made the most feeble attempts to hold agents to track terrorist plots’, that ‘fanatics the paper or its editor, Alan Rusbridger, to were signposted to the places they should account (Glover 2013b). avoid when communicating’, and that ‘the Guardian had helped to produce a “handbook” This is a version of an argument that is now for terrorists’. Every one of these anonymous being put with increasing frequency by the quotes is highly contentious, yet there is not Right, namely that if the BBC fails to cover the slightest attempt to quote opposing or stories which dominate the press agenda on even merely sceptical viewpoints (Slack 2013a). a particular morning then this is sure-fire proof of the BBC’s fabled ‘Left-wing bias’. An The same day’s edition also carried a report of alternative explanation, of course, is that many the above-mentioned speech by Parker. Again, stories which appear in most national dailies the headline and the accompanying straps are stories only by the very peculiar standards give the clearest possible indication of the line of Britain’s predominantly hard-Right press, taken by the article: ‘Guardian has handed and are frequently too distorted and inaccurate a “gift” to terrorists, warns MI5 chief: Left- to be worthy of inclusion on the news agenda wing paper’s leaks caused “greatest damage of a public service broadcaster. It has long to Western security in history” say Whitehall been obvious that Britain’s ultra-Conservative insiders’; ‘MI5 chief Andrew Parker called newspapers will not rest content until the paper’s expose a “guide book” for terrorists’; broadcast news agenda is skewed as far to ‘He said the coverage is a gift to “thousands” of the Right as is their own. If some semblance UK-based extremists’; and ‘Secret techniques of of political diversity is to be preserved in the GCHQ laid bare by Guardian’. Much of the rest British media, the BBC is going to have resist of the article consists of generous quotes from this pressure with every fibre of its being Parker, and although there is a short quote – which entails showing a great deal more from a Guardian spokesman, not only is there determination than it has done to date. no acknowledgement that Parker never once mentioned the Guardian by name but precisely Thus far, I have quoted only from opinion the opposite impression is given – repeatedly columns of one kind or another, and a possible and emphatically (Slack 2013b). The Telegraph, retort could be that as long as newspapers 9 October, published the speech in full (Daily separate out fact from comment, news from Telegraph 2013). views, then they should be free to be as partisan as they wish. However, most of the ‘news’ However, a classic example of Mail editorialising stories about the Guardian and Snowden in posing as ‘news’ stories was provided by two the Sun, Mail and (to a slightly lesser extent) more pieces on 9 October. The first is headed Telegraph have been every bit as biased as their ‘PM backs spy chief’s attack on Guardian: op-ed pieces, and I will attempt to illustrate this Security expert warned leaks risk “widespread by reference to my third, and over-arching, loss of life” but BBC buries criticism of left-wing theme, namely national security. paper’, with the subordinate headlines: ‘PM’s spokesman said MI5’s Andrew Parker made an News and views “excellent speech”’; ‘The spy chief blasted the Take, for example, an article in the Mail, 8 Guardian’s publication of secret material’; and October, headed ‘The Guardian has produced ‘Security officials say the expose could lead to a “handbook” that will help fanatics strike at UK lives being lost’. On the matter of the BBC, will’, followed by the subordinate headlines the article reveals that ‘there were last night ‘Security officials say there was no public accusations of editorial bias at the BBC, which interest in Guardian’s expose’, and ‘They also initially ignored the scathing criticisms of the claim terrorists now know where and where Guardian’ (Slack 2013c). not to communicate’. The slant of the article is thus clearly apparent before one even reads However, the accusations turn out to have been it, and the piece itself is dependent entirely made by none other than the Mail itself! These upon anonymous ‘security officials’ and were in a story headed: ‘How the BBC buried ‘Whitehall insiders’ who claim variously that the story: MI5 attack on Left-wing paper’s ‘the publication of the documents stolen by leaks played down’, with the subordinate Edward Snowden is considered to have done headlines: ‘BBC downplays MI5 chief’s scathing more damage to the security services than any condemnation of the Guardian’; ‘ other event in history’, that ‘there was no public editor is former Guardian executive Ian Katz’; interest in publishing top-secret information and ‘“They appear to be protecting Left-wing which details the precise methods used by friends” – Tory MP’ (Glennie 2013). But the

14 Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL fact remains that Parker did not mention the Rusbridger thinks he can determine which Guardian by name, and that no amount of stories might harm national security – and mis-representation can alter this inconvenient which will not. According to the experts, truth, so the real culprit here is actually the Mail he is hopelessly unqualified to make such a for insistently stating that he did. Of course, the judgment’ (Glover 2013b). story cannot appear to have been manufactured by the Mail itself as part of its endless campaign From such a perspective, it is perfectly against the BBC, so Conor Burns, the Tory MP acceptable for newspapers to give large for Bournemouth West and a member of the amounts of uncontested space to those calling Culture, Media and Sport select committee, is for the prosecution of journalists. For example, quoted to the effect that: Louise Mensch who, in the Sun, 13 October, opines that ‘if Theresa [sic] doesn’t prosecute It is extraordinary that the biggest security the Guardian, she is giving a green light to any story for a generation wasn’t deemed blogger or reporter to give our agents’ names CONFERENCE worthy of comment by the BBC’s leading to anybody they like. She has been a true Iron PAPERS investigative news programme. There seems Lady so far. She mustn’t stop now’ (Mensch to be a clear conflict of interest when its 2013). Or Lord Carlile, the former independent editor has so recently taken the Guardian’s reviewer of terrorist legislation, who gave a shilling. The whole tone of the BBC’s speech, reported in the Telegraph, 24 October, coverage of this issue seems to indicate clear under the headline ‘Publishing Edward editorial bias. They appear to be protecting Snowden security secrets a “criminal” act, says their Left-wing friends (ibid). former terrorism watchdog’, in which he asked, rhetorically: ‘Is it anything other than criminal to Whether Burns offered this quote unprompted, seek to publish such secrets?’ and stated that ‘it or whether the Mail, in its usual fashion, is worth investigating whether there were any prodded him into it in order to give the conspiracies to breach the Official Secrets Act’ appearance of legitimacy to a smear which it (Barrett 2013a). Or Liam Fox, given a Telegraph had itself concocted is, of course, impossible to column of his own on 9 November in which to tell. But nor does it matter. The point is that ask: ‘Does the Guardian newspaper’s publication both the BBC and the Guardian can appear of stolen secrets amount to irresponsible and ‘Left-wing’ only when viewed from the hard- potentially criminal behaviour?’, a question Right of the political spectrum, and thus that which the article answers with a resounding this is a ‘story’ only in terms of the Mail’s own and emphatic ‘yes’. In it he reveals: ‘I have peculiar news values. But as noted earlier, written to the Director of Public Prosecutions this ‘story’ then became the subject of furious on the issue’ (Fox 2013) and a further article and indignant comment in the Mail editorial in the same day’s paper explains that his letter and the Glover piece quoted earlier. This to the DPP states: ‘In recent days there have is an absolutely archetypal Mail ploy: run a been further accusations that the Guardian ‘news’ story which is either wildly distorted or, passed the names of GCHQ agents to foreign indeed, untrue and then use this as the basis for journalists and bloggers. Would such activities, enraged editorialising, which is then defended if true, constitute an offence under the on the grounds that the paper has a right to Terrorism Act 2000 or other related legislation, express its opinions (as opposed to a duty to get particularly the passing of details of identified its facts right). security personnel?’ He also asks: ‘Under what conditions and by what procedures would a National security decision be taken to prosecute any individuals It should be abundantly clear by now that for responsible for such activities and how would the Sun and the Mail it is absolutely axiomatic such a process be initiated?’ (Barrett 2013b). that Snowden’s revelations via the Guardian have irreparably damaged national security. In any other democratic country, such threats Sceptical or dissenting sources are very rarely to journalists would immediately be the subject quoted, and pronouncements by government of stories and indignant comment in most ministers and ‘security chiefs’ (as they are newspapers, but in Britain the threats are made habitually called) are taken entirely at face in and, effectively, by, newspapers themselves. value. For these papers, national security is There is, unfortunately, absolutely nothing new whatever these people say it is, an attitude about this – the majority of Britain’s national epitomised by Stephen Glover’s remark that press has a long and deeply dishonourable Rusbridger is ‘a newspaperman, not a security history when it comes to attacking those few expert. The high-handedness is amazing. Mr journalists brave enough not to be cowed the

ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 15 Julian Petley moment ‘national security’ or the ‘national Paper. Inevitably the papers seized with relish interest’ are mentioned, and fortunate enough on the trio’s peevish and aggrieved comments to work for those few media organisations on the media, who turned out to be the real which will facilitate their work (Petley 2013). villains of the occasion. A particular gift to the Most newspapers are far more likely to endorse headline writers was the soundbite from the attempts by the state to censor such journalism head of MI6, Sir John Sawers, that ‘the leaks than they are to condemn them, as has been from Snowden have been very damaging; they repeatedly demonstrated by their behaviour have put our operations at risk. It is clear that over, to take but a few of the most egregious our adversaries are rubbing their hands with examples, the ABC show trial (Hooper 1988: glee. Al-Qaida is lapping it up and our own 133-156; Rogers 1997: 79-83; Robertson 1999: security has suffered as a consequence’. Far less 104-34), the BBC series Secret society (Petley widely reported, however, was that when the 2001), the programme Edge of the Union in committee chairman, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, then the BBC series Real lives (Barnett 2011: 91-102; asked: ‘Do you have any additional information Leapman 1997: 294-331), and the Death on the you can share with us … as to actual hard Rock edition of Thames Television’s This Week evidence that terrorists or potential terrorists slot (Bolton 1990: 189-306). have been looking at these reports and have changed their plans or the way they operate, Ideological affinities as a result of them?’, Sir Iain Lobban, head On almost every single occasion that of GCHQ replied: ‘Not in this public forum, governments have argued that a piece of chairman. Yes, in a private forum’ (Lobban journalism should be suppressed on the 2013). And that was very much that. grounds that it endangers ‘national security’ or the ‘national interest’ it turns out that Having themselves shown no interest in the real it does absolutely no such thing – it merely issues raised by Snowden’s revelations, it was embarrasses the government of the day. So clearly of no concern to most newspapers that why do most newspapers so unhesitatingly the ISC did exactly the same. So, for example, and eagerly take the government side on there was nothing in the ISC hearing, and these occasions? The answer has to do with nothing in most papers’ reports of the event, profound ideological affinities between those on (the programme that allows GCHQ who run the country and those who own and to hoover up vast amounts of data from the run most national newspapers, affinities which cables that carry internet traffic in and out of transcend mere party allegiances. In Britain, the country, information that is shared with the most of the national press is by no stretch of NSA), and nothing on why neither the ISC nor the imagination a Fourth Estate acting as the the Cabinet nor the National Security Council public’s watchdog but an absolutely crucial part were informed about its existence in the first of the Establishment – and all the more effective place; nothing on the bugging of world leaders for its constant and remorseless peddling of who are supposed to be our allies; and nothing the rhetoric of the ‘free press’. It is a key part on the immense damage done by GCHQ and the of the all-pervasive ideological machinery NSA by cracking much of the online encryption designed to keep things as they are – and all on which hundreds of millions of users rely to the more powerful for having rendered itself guard data privacy, actions described by Sir Tim largely invisible by becoming so naturalised and Berners-Lee, the creator of the world wide web, taken-for-granted (Petley 2009). as ‘appalling and foolish’ (Pilkington 2013).

That is, at least partly, why in Britain, quite It was left to Nick Pickles, the director of Big unlike in America and elsewhere in Europe, Brother Watch, to draw the obvious conclusion, public debate about Snowden has turned as namely: ‘As the US President, world leaders and much, if not more, upon the behaviour of a international experts express concern about the newspaper as opposed to that of GCHQ and scale of surveillance and the need to review the the NSA. So when the heads of MI5, MI6 and laws and policies involved, today was perhaps GCHQ appeared before the Intelligence and more unique for the fact parliament found Security Committee (ISC) on 7 November, three people who think there is no need for which they agreed to do only on condition reform’ (see Hopkins 2013). that they saw all the questions in advance, the obsequiousness of the politicians was matched Big Brother: A caring sibling only by the fawning of most newspapers, The truth of the matter is that the remarkably whose breathless and gushing tones would incurious ISC and those newspapers which are not have been out of place in the Boy’s Own remarkably eager to take the government side

16 Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL against journalists who expose wrongdoing by References the state are both expressions of precisely the Barnett, Stephen (2011) The rise and fall of television journalism: Just wires and lights in a box?, London, Bloomsbury Academic same culture. As pointed out in the Guardian, 2 December, the reason Barrett, David (2013a) Publishing Edward Snowden security secrets a ‘criminal’ act, says former terrorism watchdog, Daily Telegraph, why Americans have been so shocked by 24 October. Available online at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ Snowden’s revelations and Britons so unmoved news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10401711/Publishing-Edward- has to do with profound differences between Snowden-security-secrets-a-criminal-act-says-former-terrorism- the cultures of the two countries (Freedland watchdog.html, accessed on 17 December 2013 2013). In America, people believe that their Barrett, David (2013b) Edward Snowden spy leaks: Liam Fox in push for Guardian newspaper to be prosecuted, Daily Telegraph, government is supposed to work for them, that it 9 November. Available online at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ should be their servant, not their master. Hence uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10438200/Edward-Snowden-spy-leaks- the Constitution begins with a declaration of Liam-Fox-in-push-for-Guardian-newspaper-to-be-prosecuted.html where sovereign authority belongs: ‘We the Bolton, R. (1990) Death on the Rock and other stories, London, W. people.’ That is why the Snowden revelations H. Allen/Optomen CONFERENCE are so shocking to Americans: they expose Doward, Jamie (2013) Metropolitan police detained David Miranda PAPERS for promoting ‘political’ causes, Guardian, 2 November. Available an arm of government acting without the online at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/02/david- permission, or indeed the knowledge, of the miranda-detained-political-causes, accessed on 17 December 2013

American people and their representatives in Cameron, David (2013a) Speech in parliament, Hansard, 16 Octo- Congress. And that is why it is axiomatic for ber. Available online at http://www.publications.parliament. reputable American newspapers to subscribe to uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131016/debtext/131016-0001. htm#13101671000010, accessed on 17 December 2013 and try to live up to the Fourth Estate ideal. By Cameron, David (2013b) Speech in parliament, Hansard, 28 Octo- contrast: ber. Available online at http://www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131028/debtext/131028-0001. Britons have no such starting assumptions. htm#1310285000470, accessed on 17 December 2013 The people are not sovereign here, they Daily Mail (2013a) Comment: Border failings keep Britain a ‘soft never have been. We speak of parliamentary, touch’, 23 August. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ debate/article-2401138/DAILY-MAIL-COMMENT-Border-failings- not popular, sovereignty. We are used to Britain-soft-touch.html, accessed on 17 December 2013 power flowing from the top down, from the Daily Mail (2013b) The paper that helps Britain’s enemies, 9 centre outward, and most of the time we October. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ accept it. We act as if it’s natural for the state article-2451557/Daily-Mail-Comment-The-Guardian-paper-helps- to be in charge and it’s an act of generosity Britains-enemies.html, accessed on 17 December 2013 when it deigns to let in a little daylight. If DPBAC (2013) DA Notices. Available online at http://www.dnotice. an arm of the state insists on total secrecy, org.uk/danotices/index.htm, accessed on 17 December 2013 that seems reasonable to Brits in a way few Daily Telegraph (2013) MI5 chief security speech, 8 October. Available online at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ Americans would ever accept. It’s not a defence/10366119/MI5-chief-security-speech.htm, accessed on 17 natural instinct for Britons to see, say, GCHQ December 2013

as their employees (ibid). D Notice (2013) Report of meeting, 7 November. Available online at http://www.dnotice.org.uk/records.htm, accessed on 17 Decem- Or as Ben Macintyre put it in , 30 ber 2013 August, ‘we cannot quite believe that Big Fox, Liam (2013) A free press but not when it endangers the secu- rity of our nation, Daily Telegraph, 9 November. Available online at Brother is not, for the most part, a caring http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10438356/Liam-Fox-A-free- sibling with our best interests at heart’, with press-but-not-not-when-it-endangers-the-security-of-our-nation. the consequence that, in one of the most html developed surveillance societies on the planet, Freedland, Jonathan (2013) Snowden fallout throws in stark ‘we are more reassured than dismayed by being relief US and UK notions of liberty, Guardian, 2 December. Avail- able online at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/02/ spied upon’ (Macintyre 2013). In such a culture, snowden-fallout-us-uk-liberty-nsa-spying, accessed on 17 Decem- it really is no wonder that the majority of the ber 2013 national press is prone to act as if it were an Glennie, Alasdair (2013) How the BBC buried the story: MI5 arm of the state, and that a play called Pravda attack on Left-wing paper’s leaks played down, 9 October, Daily could be written about it. It is surely high time Mail. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti- cle-2451549/How-BBC-buried-story-MI5-attack-Left-wing-papers- that it was revived. leaks-played-down.html, accessed on 17 December 2013

Glover, Stephen (2013a) That airport arrest troubles me, 21 August, Daily Mail. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ article-2398470/The-Guardians-murky-waters-love-country-ven- ture-says-STEPHEN-GLOVER.html, accessed on 17 December 2013

Glover, Stephen (2013b) Stupendous arrogance, 9 October, Daily Mail. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ article-2451532/STEPHEN-GLOVER-By-risking-lives-The-Guardian- floundering-far-depth.html, accessed on 17 December 2013

ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 17 Julian Petley Greenslade, Roy (2013) Alan Rusbridger batted away MPs’ bluster Pilkington, Ed (2013) Tim Berners-Lee: encryption cracking by spy without raising a sweat, Guardian, 3 December. Available online at agencies ‘appalling and foolish’, Guardian, 7 November. Available http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/dec/03/alan-rusbridger- online at (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/06/tim- batted-away-mps-bluster, accessed on 17 December 2013 berners-lee-encryption-spy-agencies), accessed on 17 December

Home Affairs committee (2013) Report, Hansard, 3 December. 2013 Available online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ Robertson, Geoffrey (1999) The justice game, London, Vintage.

cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/c231-iv/c23101.htm, accessed on 17 Robertson, Geoffrey and Nicol, Andrew (2008) Media law, London, December 2013 Penguin, fifth edition

Hooper, David (1988) Official secrets: The use and abuse of the Act, Rogers, Ann (1997) Secrecy and power in the British state: A history London, Coronet of the Official Secrets Act, London, Pluto Press

Hopkins, Nick (2013) British spymasters let their frustrations show Rusbridger, Alan (2013) David Miranda, schedule 7 and the dangers but explanations remain hidden, Guardian, 7 November. Available that all reporters now face, Guardian, 19 August. Available online online at http://www.theguardian.com/news/defence-and-security- at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david- blog/2013/nov/07/mi6-uksecurity), accessed on 17 December 2013 miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters, accessed on 17 December Leapman, Michael (1997) The last days of the Beeb, London, Coro- 2013

net Slack, James (2013a) The Guardian has produced a ‘handbook’ Liddle, Rod (2013) Guardian treason helping terrorists, 10 October, that will help fanatics strike at will, 8 October, Daily Mail. Avail- Sun. Available online at http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ able online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450291/ suncolumnists/rodliddle/5192001/Guardian-treason-is-helping-ter- The-Guardian-produced-handbook-help-fanatics-strike-will.html, rorists.html accessed on 17 December 2013

Lobban, Sir Iain (2013) Comments at Intelligence and Security Com- Slack, James (2013b) Guardian has handed a ‘gift’ to terrorists, mittee of parliament, 7 November. Available online at http://www. warns MI5 chief, 8 October, Daily Mail. Available online at http:// scribd.com/doc/182619457/Chiefs-of-MI5-MI6-and-GCHQ-before- www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450237/MI5-chief-Andrew- UK-parliament-s-intelligence-and-security-committee, accessed on Parke-The-Guardian-handed-gift-terrorists.html, accessed on 17 17 December 2013 December 2013

Mensch, Louise (2013) May must prosecute Guardian, Sun, 13 Octo- Slack, James (2013c) PM backs spy chief’s attack on Guardian, 9 ber October, Daily Mail. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

Macintyre, Ben (2013) Digital surveillance by the security services is news/article-2451540/David-Cameron-backs-spy-chiefs-attack- outraging the world. Only Britain finds being spied on reassuring, Guardian-BBC-buries-criticism-Left-wing-paper.html Times, 30 August. Available online athttp://www.thetimes.co.uk/ Smith, Julian (2013) Speech in parliament, Hansard, 22 Octo- tto/opinion/columnists/benmacintyre/article3855545.ece, accessed ber. Available online at http://www.publications.parliament. on 17 December 2013 uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131022/halltext/131022h0002.

Petley, Julian (2001), Secret society, Jones, Derek (ed.) Censorship: A htm#13102269000454, accessed on 17 December 2013 world encyclopedia, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers pp 2181- Spectator (2013) Comment: The Guardian didn’t care when Mur- 2184 doch’s journalists were arrested. So why the hysteria now?, 24

Petley, Julian (2009) What Fourth Estate?, Bailey, Michael (ed.) Nar- August. Available online at http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/ rating media history, Abingdon, Oxon, Routledge pp 184-95 leading-article/9000981/freedom-and-security/

Petley, Julian (2013) Newspapers call for censorship, British Journal- ism Review, Vol. 24, No. 3 pp 33-38 Note on the contributor Julian Petley is Professor of Screen Media in the School of Arts at Brunel University, chair of the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, and a member of the advisory board of Index on Censor- ship and of the editorial board of the British Journalism Review. His most recent book is the edited collection The media and public shaming (I. B. Tauris, 2013).

18 Copyright 2014-1/2. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics. All rights reserved. Vol 11, No 1/2 2014 ICE CONFERENCE SPECIAL