Media Standards Trust

Recent leaks about terror suspects are putting lives at risk, according to the head of Britain's Counter Terrorism Command. How widespread has leaking become, what damage do leaks do, and what can be done about it?

5 Comments

Context

The danger of leaks: In a speech to the Policy Exchange think tank Peter Clarke, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said his counter-terrorism investigations were being compromised as a result of leaks, threatening the investigations themselves and jeopardising arrests. He suggested the reason for the leaks might be to “squeeze out some short-term presentational advantage”. Clarke did not name any sources of the leaks but he implied they have come from within the police or the government.

The Birmingham ‘plot’: To illustrate the problem Clarke cited the police raids in Birmingham on January 31st 2007. Although the raids did not begin until 4am on the morning of Wednesday 31st, news organisations already had journalists in Birmingham ready to cover them. The raids themselves were even reported in many of the papers that day (see The Sun, The Mirror, and the Daily Mail). A suspect, Clarke said, almost escaped as a consequence and the coverage itself increased community tensions.

The gravity of the issue: These warnings, the Independent argued in a Leader, ‘should be taken very seriously indeed’. Clarke, the paper said, ‘is a man who chooses his words carefully’. The deputy assistant commissioner’s remarks come after similar comments six months ago by the former head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham Butler, who, the Daily Mail said, ‘wrote to key figures including Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell, Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, and Home Office boss Sir David Normanton to raise her concerns about recent leaks’.

Following Clarke’s speech the Liberal Democrats introduced a dossier of alleged leaks, and David Cameron called for an inquiry. Tony Blair rejected these calls, saying there was no firm evidence of a leak.

Assigning blame: A number of articles suggested the government was to blame – both for the leaks cited by Clarke and for creating a “spin” culture that encourages such leaks. Ian Cobain and Will Woodward, writing in the Guardian, said they had been ‘told by a well-placed source that one disclosure… came from an official working for John Reid, the home secretary’. But what about the role of the media? Back in February, shortly after the raids themselves, Peter Wilby argued the newspapers bore a good deal of the responsibility. ‘The biggest press scandal of our time’ wrote Wilby on February 5th, ‘is… the newspapers' consistent and brazen disregard for the contempt laws’. Neither have the police escaped blame. ‘Journalists received up to three separate briefings’ before the raids, the Guardian claimed, and ‘both the Home Office and the police are implicated’.

Impact: in addition to the impact on the investigations themselves, Clarke said the leaks diminish public trust in intelligence. In the case of Birmingham they also, according to Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, create long term problems within communities. ‘There is a real and growing concern’ Bari wrote, ‘that Muslims accused of any criminal activity are being tried and condemned by the media and that their right to defend themselves in court is being seriously prejudiced and undermined’.

Questions

How widespread is leaking?

Clarke's speech implied that leaking was now widespread. Is this true? If so, hasn't it always been this way? Back in 2001 David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, accidentally confessed to a policy of leaking. Denying a specific leak Blunkett said it was "The first time since I have been in the Home Office [that] something hasn't been leaked on my behalf, I get criticised for the timing of putting it out." In his recent book, Trading Information, Nick Jones suggests that leaking has now become institutionalised.

Why do they do it?

Is it for short term presentational advantage? Do the government, police and others believe this is the only way they can control media coverage? Is it unrealistic to think we can avoid leaks in our media saturated culture?

What damage do leaks do?

To specific investigations? To the individuals and communities involved? To public trust?

What responsibility do the media have?

As Wilby and others have suggested, many news organisations are willing collaborators in leaking. Do they need to become more conscious of their own behaviour and the pressure they put on sources?

What can and should be done about it?

Peter Clarke suggests the laws surround contempt of court should be relaxed to make them more realistic to the media age. Peter Wilby suggests the opposite.

Tell us what you think. Join the debate.

Recommended

‘This culture of leaks shows contempt for the electorate’, Marina Hyde, The Guardian, 28-4-07

‘They see it here, they see it there, they see Al-Qaeda everywhere’, Simon Jenkins, The Sunday Times, 29-4-07

‘Anti-terrorism leaks blamed on spin doctors’, Nigel Morris, The Independent, 26-4-07

'The Guardian Profile: Peter Clarke', The Guardian, 29-7-05

Just a thought on the difference between the whistleblower and the leaker:

The intention of the leaker is to guide perception - to manufacture an impression (here anonymity is used as a means to conceal the real intent, the interest of the agent). The intention of the whistleblower is to free up perception - to allow those who do not have access to understand something that would otherwise be concealed (here anonymity is used to facilitate understanding) So they are in fact opposites.

OK, thoughts so far include:
- we should distinguish between leaks for 'tactical advantage' vs 'genuine whistleblowing' (are both on the increase?)
- the government should be required to release information at the same time and to all journalists
- journalists should take more responsibility for their actions - i.e. that by horse-trading information and not sourcing it, it is devalued
Are there good examples of recent whistleblowing? How does the case of David Keogh - accused of leaking a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair - compare to the leaking of the Birmingham 'plot'?

The problem is that our media and our politicians have created a culture where presentational advantage is THE business of politics.

Who has what information when is everything now - I'm thinking of the announcement grid and 'good days to bury bad news'.

If the head of Britain's Counter Terrorism Command makes these kinds of allegations then the police should investigate without fear of criticism. But that's difficult after the concerted campaign to discredit the police over the recent cash-for-honours investigation (where the government accused the police of leaking).

I don't think that news organisations will ever be able resist the off the record briefing. As someone studying journalism I can say that in some ways that is seen as THE business of journalists.

But the horse-trading of information devalues the currency - the result is an electorate who can never trust anything they hear. Without knowing who is saying what we can never determine who stands to benefit and therefore we are shorn of our ability to be informed citizens.

One last thought is that journalists badly need a sense of responsibility and some humility. My (very brief) time in news organisations has revealed an almost comic self obsession and regard among news journalists. They don't stop to think what the implications for those are covering are. They think their business is more important than anything else and they are wrong.

Nick is spot on. The Phillis Inquiry offered the Government the chance to put politics on the record and use live televised briefings more, but they preferred to play the game.

The Birmingham "plot" leaks were for tactical advantage, either by police or politicians or proably both, and were in effect plants. They should not be confused with the upsurge in genuine whistleblowing triggered by public concern about the Iraq war and the anti-terrorist clampdown. Radical action is needed by the state to clean up its act. If public servants were required to supply all journalists with the same information at the same time and speak on the record, it would help root out spin doctors who "leak" for tactical advantage and force journalists to be more honest about their sources. Congratulations to Media Standards Trust for launching this debate.