In July the US senate intelligence committee blamed pre-war claims about Iraqi WMD on a global failure of intelligence. The British press gave this shocking indictment front-page coverage, just as it now publicises the Iraq Survey Groups failure to find gas bombs, germ rockets or atomic weapons. But while the newspapers are right to contrast Blairs claims about Saddams weaponry with the final official verdict, they are less keen to discuss their own failures.
For the simple truth is the British media contributed to that global failure of intelligence. The Telegraph, for example, said: Saddam Hussein is hiding chemical and biological weapons supplies in mosques and hospitals. Similarly, almost a decade ago The Sunday Times ran one story for three weeks claiming Iraq was building atomic weapons; what it never reported was the fact that the UN body the International Atomic Energy Agency had declared that the documents behind the tale were faked.
But the problem with British newspapers is not just their reluctance to confess when their facts are exposed as lies; often they will refuse to look at real stories even when theyre placed under their noses.
Back in November 2000 I discovered that a firm linked to the Republican Party, ChoicePoint DBT, was hired by the state of Florida to knock ex-felons off the electoral rolls there. I found that many of those losing the right to vote were protesting that they were disenfranchised illegally. With Dubya winning Florida, and the US presidency, on a mere 537 votes, the possibility that a firm linked to his party gerrymandered the vote seemed explosive. But when I approached The Observer and The Guardian with the tale, they didnt want to know.
I think one reason why newspapers refuse to run certain stories relates to sources. In newspaper orthodoxy, the best sources are those at the top of society: the senior politicians, advisers and civil servants who know more than ordinary folk. The problem is, those at the top of society are not keen to reveal their own misbehaviour. While my story about ChoicePoint rested on openly published official documents, it did not come from a top source, and was indeed denied by such sources.
Of course, an individual, dedicated journalist can make a difference. Investigative journalist Greg Palast took the ChoicePoint story and, with huge effort, made it stand up. It is worth noting, though, that both Palast and I were involved in this story as freelances, without permanent employment on any newspaper. Newspapers dislike news that is not ready-packaged, and investigative journalism costs money. And while columnists can also be expensive, they are reliable, which explains why newspapers are awash with comment: a good columnist will churn out their 1,000 words come rain or shine; a long investigation, on the other hand, might find nothing.
I had a second lesson about sources when Saddams supposed mobile bio-weapon labs were found. The Iraqis claimed, correctly, that the vehicles were not bio-weapons vans, but trucks to inflate weather balloons for their artillery. US secretary of state Colin Powell mocked this balloon explanation, and it went unreported in Britain. I discovered, however, that the UK had exported military balloon systems to Iraq. This suggested the Iraqis were telling the truth. The Observer was interested, but not really ready to run the story until, that rare event, an inside source (one David Kelly) turned round and confirmed the vehicles were balloon, not bio-war, trucks.
Sometimes the Sunday papers act as a court of appeal for missed stories. I sold the Observer a story exposing the link between Enron and the Labour Party. I first knew that Enron funded the Labour Party because The Guardian published a list of Labours financial backers. However, while the paper listed these donors, it spent no time wondering who they were; and when I tried to interest it in the grim history of Labours newest friend the paper didnt want to know. I was more successful with The Observer, but it says a lot about the press in this country that the first exposé of the Labour-Enron link came from a freelance on the fringes of the press, not from someone working in the heart of Fleet Street.
In July the US senate intelligence committee blamed pre-war claims about Iraqi WMD on a global failure of intelligence. The British press gave this shocking indictment front-page coverage, just as it now publicises the Iraq Survey Groups failure to find gas bombs, germ rockets or atomic weapons. But while the newspapers are right to contrast Blairs claims about Saddams weaponry with the final official verdict, they are less keen to discuss their own failures.
For the simple truth is the British media contributed to that global failure of intelligence. The Telegraph, for example, said: Saddam Hussein is hiding chemical and biological weapons supplies in mosques and hospitals. Similarly, almost a decade ago The Sunday Times ran one story for three weeks claiming Iraq was building atomic weapons; what it never reported was the fact that the UN body the International Atomic Energy Agency had declared that the documents behind the tale were faked.
But the problem with British newspapers is not just their reluctance to confess when their facts are exposed as lies; often they will refuse to look at real stories even when theyre placed under their noses.
Back in November 2000 I discovered that a firm linked to the Republican Party, ChoicePoint DBT, was hired by the state of Florida to knock ex-felons off the electoral rolls there. I found that many of those losing the right to vote were protesting that they were disenfranchised illegally. With Dubya winning Florida, and the US presidency, on a mere 537 votes, the possibility that a firm linked to his party gerrymandered the vote seemed explosive. But when I approached The Observer and The Guardian with the tale, they didnt want to know.
I think one reason why newspapers refuse to run certain stories relates to sources. In newspaper orthodoxy, the best sources are those at the top of society: the senior politicians, advisers and civil servants who know more than ordinary folk. The problem is, those at the top of society are not keen to reveal their own misbehaviour. While my story about ChoicePoint rested on openly published official documents, it did not come from a top source, and was indeed denied by such sources.
Of course, an individual, dedicated journalist can make a difference. Investigative journalist Greg Palast took the ChoicePoint story and, with huge effort, made it stand up. It is worth noting, though, that both Palast and I were involved in this story as freelances, without permanent employment on any newspaper. Newspapers dislike news that is not ready-packaged, and investigative journalism costs money. And while columnists can also be expensive, they are reliable, which explains why newspapers are awash with comment: a good columnist will churn out their 1,000 words come rain or shine; a long investigation, on the other hand, might find nothing.
I had a second lesson about sources when Saddams supposed mobile bio-weapon labs were found. The Iraqis claimed, correctly, that the vehicles were not bio-weapons vans, but trucks to inflate weather balloons for their artillery. US secretary of state Colin Powell mocked this balloon explanation, and it went unreported in Britain. I discovered, however, that the UK had exported military balloon systems to Iraq. This suggested the Iraqis were telling the truth. The Observer was interested, but not really ready to run the story until, that rare event, an inside source (one David Kelly) turned round and confirmed the vehicles were balloon, not bio-war, trucks.
Sometimes the Sunday papers act as a court of appeal for missed stories. I sold the Observer a story exposing the link between Enron and the Labour Party. I first knew that Enron funded the Labour Party because The Guardian published a list of Labours financial backers. However, while the paper listed these donors, it spent no time wondering who they were; and when I tried to interest it in the grim history of Labours newest friend the paper didnt want to know. I was more successful with The Observer, but it says a lot about the press in this country that the first exposé of the Labour-Enron link came from a freelance on the fringes of the press, not from someone working in the heart of Fleet Street.