censorship | ukwatch.net

Comment Is Closed

Ellie Keen — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:48:30 +0000

MEDIA ALERT: INTELLECTUAL CLEANSING: PART 3

In Part 1 of this alert, we noted how journalists who threaten their employers’ interests – and the interests of their key political and corporate allies – tend to be unceremoniously dumped. We also described how the force of the law can be deployed to silence dissidents seeking to expose chronic media bias.

In Part 2, we hosted journalist Jonathan Cook’s splendid analysis in response. Cook’s main point was that media managers rarely have to take such extreme measures because few journalists “make it to senior positions unless they have already learnt how to toe the line.”

An interesting question arises, then, in the age of the internet: To what extent will these same ultra-sensitive media companies tolerate public criticism? For example, will they allow visitors to their websites to post material that is critical of their journalism, and perhaps even damaging to their interests? Last month, we tested the limits of dissent on the Guardian’s Comment Is Free (CiF) website.

On September 20, we posted a message on CiF in response to an article written by Guardian journalist Emma Brockes. Brockes had commented wryly on Tania Head, a 9/11 survivor, “of whom it has been alleged that she was not on the 78th floor of the South Tower on September 11th as she claimed, but may have been in Spain at the time…”

Brockes added:

"But well below the level of mental illness a lot of low-level fakery is actively embraced and rewarded." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/20/uselections2008.usa?commentpage=1&commentposted=1)

We posted the following comment:

“This is from the same journalist [Brockes] who wrote in October 2005:

"’[Noam] Chomsky uses quotations marks to undermine things he disagrees with and, in print at least, it can come across less as academic than as witheringly teenage; like, Srebrenica was so not a massacre.’”

In our post, we described Chomsky’s outrage at the suggestion that he had denied that the Serb killings of Bosnians at Srebrenica in 1995 constituted a massacre. In 2005, Chomsky wrote to us of Brockes’s article:

“Even when the words attributed to me have some resemblance to accuracy, I take no responsibility for them, because of the invented contexts in which they appear… her piece de resistance, the claim that I put the word ‘massacre’ in quotes. Sheer fabrication.”

Chomsky described his treatment by Brockes and the Guardian as "one of the most dishonest and cowardly performances I recall ever having seen in the media.” (See our media alerts: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/051104_smearing_chomsky_the_guardian.php and http://www.medialens.org/alerts/05/051121_smearing_chomsky_the_guardian.php)

We were interested to see how these comments would be received by the Guardian website. In the event, our message remained in place for 48 hours but was then deleted. The site moderator explained in an email:

“The article that Medialens replied to was about emotional fakery and its role in American political culture. The comment that was removed did not address this topic but instead raised a past journalistic error by the author.” (Email to Media Lens, September 23, 2008)

In fact, while Brockes had discussed emotional fakery, focusing on “self dramatisation”, she had also written: “fakery no less shameless goes on every day in the political debate and the way we the audience internalise it. McCain flatly contradicts himself within the space of a single day.”

Political fakery and self-contradiction were exactly the themes of our post, but it was deleted as “off topic” by the Guardian gatekeepers.

Only a handful of comments had been posted in response to Brockes’s article. When we and one or two other people posted messages protesting the deletions, these were also deleted and someone called the Community Moderator shut down the debate, writing: “This discussion will now close, as it has mostly been off topic.” A final message appeared: “Comments are now closed for this entry.”

The website shows five messages deleted alongside just nine posts remaining. Other posts had been removed altogether: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/20/uselections2008.usa?commentpage=1&commentposted=1

Self-Deceits Held In Common – Groupthink

We have seen how the propaganda system is filtered by a range of carrot and stick pressures: professional training, selection for obedience, promotions and demotions, sackings, legal pressures, and the rest. The final piece of the jigsaw is much more elusive and mysterious.

In his book Vital Lies, Simple Truths, psychologist Daniel Goleman examined the human capacity for self-deception. According to Goleman, we build our version of reality around key frameworks of understanding, or “schemas”, which we then protect from conflicting facts and ideas. The more important a schema is for our sense of identity and security, the less likely we are to accept evidence contradicting it. Goleman wrote:

“Foremost among these shared, yet unspoken, schemas are those that designate what is worthy of attention, how it is to be attended to – and what we choose to ignore or deny… People in groups also learn together how not to see – how aspects of shared experience can be veiled by self-deceits held in common." (Goleman, Vital Lies, Simple Truths – The Psychology of Self-Deception, Bloomsbury 1997, p.158)

Goleman concluded: "The ease with which we deny and dissemble – and deny and dissemble to ourselves that we have denied or dissembled – is remarkable."

Psychologist Donald Spence noted the sophistication of this process:

“We are tempted to conclude that the avoidance is not random but highly efficient – the person knows just where not to look.” (Ibid, p.107)

This tendency to self-deception appears to be greatly increased when we join as part of a group. Groups create a sense of belonging, a “we-feeling”, which can provide even greater incentives to reject painful truths. As psychologist Irving Janis reports, the ‘we-feeling’ lends “a sense of belonging to a powerful, protective group that in some vague way opens up new potentials for each of them.” (Ibid, p.186)

Members are thus reluctant to say or do anything that might lessen these feelings of security and empowerment. In this situation, even pointing out the risks surrounding a group decision may seem to represent an unforgivable attack on the group itself. This is ‘groupthink’. Individual self-deception, combined with groupthink, helps explain why journalists are able to ignore even the most obvious facts.

In our September 16 Media Alert, we wrote that the Independent had devoted 153 words in the first two weeks of September to the flooding catastrophe in Haiti. By that time, 1,000 people were reported killed with 1 million made homeless out of a population of 9 million. (http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/080916_not_very_interesting.php)

In response, the Independent’s former Washington correspondent, now Asia correspondent, Andrew Buncombe, wrote to us:

Dear Davids, Hello and best wishes. Hope all is well. Your latest alert about Haiti is as thought-provoking as ever but I think there are a couple of clear errors you’ve made that ought to be cleared up. Firstly you say The Independent did not report the hurricanes raging down on the country and that "the Independent has not mentioned Haiti since September 5. But the paper has at least helped explain its own prejudice". That simple point clearly is not true. Guy Adams filed on September 7 a page lead pointing out the chaos facing untold thousands.http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/haiti-in-crisis-after-tropical-storm-claims-more-than-500-lives-921716.html

But beyond that you also claim "This indifference has led to an appalling level of non-reporting, not just of the latest floods, but also of the killing of unarmed civilians by United Nations forces (Minustah), the Haitian National Police, and death squads". You say a raid in Cite Soleil in July 2005 was reported only by a few US newspapers but that is not the case. The Independent reported on the raid and revealed evidence collated by Kevin Pina that unarmed civilians were killed.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/peacekeepers-accused-after-killings-in-haiti-500570.html

This was followed up in Feb 2007 by more details of civilians being killed by UN troops.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/civilians-caught-in-crossfire-during-portauprince-raids-434723.html

You’re correct in saying that Haiti does not get as much coverage as the US but your claim that the paper has not reported on Haiti, its problems and its ongoing challenges is not true. A simple search on Google for articles about Haiti over the last few years would quickly show that. Best wishes, Andy Buncombe

Andrew Buncombe
Asia Correspondent
The Independent

We replied on September 21:

Dear Andrew

Many thanks for your email. You’re right about Guy Adams’ September 7 article. For some reason, that wasn’t picked up by our LexisNexis search. We note, though, that the piece devoted 360 words to the disaster in Haiti. At the time we wrote the alert, that figure could have been added to the 153 words mentioning Haiti in the paper that month. That would have totalled 513 words for a 16-day period when perhaps 1000 people died and utter catastrophe befell the island.

You write:

"You say a raid in Cite Soleil in July 2005 was reported only by a few US newspapers but that is not the case."

In fact we weren’t commenting on UK reporting in that section. We were describing research presented in Dan Beeton’s report on US media performance: ‘Bad News From Haiti: U.S. Press Misses the Story.’ We wrote:

"... only a few US newspapers mentioned the incident. These mostly portrayed the incident as a successful UN attempt to eliminate gang members – reports of civilian deaths were ignored.

"The US press has given similar treatment to atrocities committed by the Haitian National Police."

We thought it was clear that we were referring to Beeton’s analysis solely of the US press, but perhaps we could have been clearer.

It’s hard not to reflect on the deeper significance of your response. You’re right that the Independent devoted 513 rather than 153 words to the devastation of Haiti from September 1-16. But, really, so what? Would you be focusing on this tiny difference in assessing the Independent’s performance if you were not working for the paper? Wouldn’t a dispassionate, rational observer join with us in criticising the Independent’s appalling indifference to the disaster this month rather than arguing that "your claim that the paper has not reported on Haiti, its problems and its ongoing challenges is not true"? We did not argue that the Independent has "not reported on Haiti". We argued that its performance, particularly this month in offering a few hundred words – less than one word per death – was pitiful. We have a great deal of respect for you. But isn’t your response on this occasion an example of a kind of corporate ‘groupthink’?

Best wishes

David Edwards and David Cromwell

It is painful for a journalist to be aware of both his or her employer’s shortcomings and his or her powerlessness to remedy them. As Daniel Goleman has noted, “when one can’t do anything to change the situation, the other recourse is to change how one perceives it.” (Goleman, op. cit, p.148)

This, finally, is the key human trait that enables "brainwashing under freedom" – journalists are able to perceive as important only that which allows them to thrive as successful components of the corporate system. The price is high, as Norman Mailer noted:

"There is an odour to any Press Headquarters that is unmistakeable… the unavoidable smell of flesh burning quietly and slowly in the service of a machine." (Mailer, The Time of Our Time, Little Brown, 1998, p.457)

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Matt Seaton, editor of the Guardian’s Comment is Free website. Ask him why he rejected Greg Philo’s excellent piece.
Email: matt.seaton@guardian.co.uk

Write to the the Sunday Herald. Ask them why Martin Tierney will no longer be reviewing books for them:
Email: letters@theherald.co.uk and books@theherald.co.uk

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us:
Email: editor@medialens.org

This media alert will shortly be archived here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/1015_intellectual_cleansing_part3.php

The Media Lens book ‘Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published in 2006. For details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate

Please visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

We have a lively and informative message board:
http://www.medialens.org/board

Intellectual Cleansing: Part 1

Ellie Keen — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:11:27 +0000

Keeping The Media Safe For Big Business

Martin Tierney is one of a tiny number of mainstream journalists willing to review our book, ‘Guardians of Power’. In June 2006, he published an accurate outline of our argument in the Herald, commenting: "It stands up to scrutiny."

He added that we "do not see conscious conspiracy but a ‘filter system maintained by free market forces.’ After all it wouldn’t be appropriate to show the limbs of third world children during Thanksgiving as it would only remind consumers who was really being stuffed." (http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/review_herald.php)

Exactly so. But if no conspiracy is involved, how on earth does the market manage to filter dissident views with such consistency? As baffled Channel 4 news reader, Jon Snow, told us:

"Well, I’m sorry to say, it either happens or it doesn’t happen. If it does happen, it’s a conspiracy; if it doesn’t happen, it’s not a conspiracy." (Interview with David Edwards, January 9, 2001; http://www.medialens.org/ articles/interviews/jon_snow.php)

In 1996, Noam Chomsky attempted to explain to an equally bemused Andrew Marr (then of the Independent):

Marr: "This is what I don’t get, because it suggests – I mean, I’m a journalist – people like me are ‘self-censoring’..."

Chomsky: "No – not self-censoring. There’s a filtering system that starts in kindergarten and goes all the way through and – it doesn’t work a hundred percent, but it’s pretty effective – it selects for obedience and subordination, and especially…"

Marr: "So, stroppy people won’t make it to positions of influence…"

Chomsky: "There’ll be ‘behaviour problems’ or… if you read applications to a graduate school, you see that people will tell you ‘he doesn’t get along too well with his colleagues’ – you know how to interpret those things."

Chomsky’s key point:

"I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is, if you believed something different you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting." (The Big Idea, BBC2, February 14, 1996; http://www.aithne.net/index. php?e=news&id=4&lang=0)

So what happens when a professional journalist does express "something different"? Is their office seat just yanked away from them and rolled under a more reliable rear end?

Consider the case of our reviewer, Martin Tierney, who wrote for the Saturday Herald for seven years. In August, Tierney reviewed Barbara Ehrenreich’s book Going To Extremes (Granta, 2008). With his usual uncompromising vim, he wrote:

"It is essentially a tirade against every method used against US citizens to ensure that their wealth is systematically transferred to government and corporate elites.

"This is done, she claims, via abuse of the tax system, scapegoating immigrants; denial of Unions and Gestapo tactics used by the likes of… [a large US supermarket] to ensure this and a perennial ‘Warfare State’ where taxpayers money merely is used to enrich arms dealers while bludgeoning them into a unnecessary paranoia."

Notice that Tierney merely reported claims made by Ehrenreich in her book regarding the use of "Gestapo tactics". It seems the Herald’s initial response to the review was positive – the piece was excellent, he was told. (Email to Media Lens, September 25, 2008)

But someone else on the Herald’s editorial staff informed Tierney that the reference to the supermarket’s "Gestapo tactics" had caused great upset and anger in the office. One senior editor in particular was deeply unamused. This last reaction appears to have been decisive. Indeed, as a result, Tierney was told, he was being asked to relinquish his column. The reasoning? His editor felt she could not feel confident that he would not make similarly extreme comments in future – comments that might slip undetected into the paper. (Email from Tierney to Media Lens, October 1, 2008)

The reference to a lack of confidence immediately recalls the work of journalist and physicist Jeff Schmidt who has studied the filtering of career professionals in some depth. The professional, Schmidt explains, "is an obedient thinker, an intellectual property whom employers can trust to experiment, theorise, innovate and create safely within the confines of an assigned ideology. The political and intellectual timidity of today’s most highly educated employees is no accident." (Schmidt, Disciplined Minds, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2000, p.16)

The question of trust is crucial – employers must be able to rely on their human property to play by the rules. This is why Tierney was fired.

The employer’s reference to Tierney’s extreme comment was ironic indeed given the extreme nature of the horrors exposed in Ehrenreich’s book – titled, after all, Going To Extremes – and outlined in Tierney’s review.

Tierney tells us the review was published – with the unamusing mention of the US supermarket, and all references to it, removed – on August 16. (Email from Tierney to Media Lens September 30, 2008)

If you’ve ever wondered why the press finds it so hard to find ‘space’ for the multitude of excellent, radical analyses, this incident gives an idea of the true reasons. The unwritten corporate media rule is that you can say what you like about the powerless – they can be treated with contempt, smeared and slandered without limit. But when the powerless attempt to challenge the powerful, a different rule applies.

By contrast, in May, the mighty Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute, had no problems attacking the BBC in a Times article titled, ‘Watch out, the Gestapo are about.’
(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3933535.ece)

Butler was not merely reporting an accusation of "Gestapo tactics", as Tierney did; he was himself protesting a BBC advert that sought to scare viewers into paying their licence fees. Butler commented:

"Nor are these Gestapo tactics new. Years ago, similar advertisements showed a family laughing at some comedy programme on TV. Comes the voice-over: ‘If you have a TV licence, you’re laughing.’ In the dimly-lit street, a van draws up. Black leather boots crunch up the path, the family still oblivious. The voice continues: ‘If not…’ A gloved hand presses the bell. Suddenly, the family stops laughing, their faces gripped by sheer dread."

You can bet there was no great upset in the Times’ offices.

In July 2007, Ned Temko and Nicholas Watt of the Observer reported that the wife of Downing Street’s former chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, had "lifted the lid on the private fury felt by Tony Blair’s inner circle over the cash-for- peerages inquiry, accusing the police of ‘Gestapo tactics’." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/ politics/2007/jul/22/uk.partyfunding)

Imagine the shock if Temko and Watt had been sacked for reporting the accusation.

In September 2006, Dominic Lawson wrote an article titled, ‘Gestapo tactics in freedom’s name.’ Protesting the US-UK use of torture in fighting "the war on terror", Lawson wrote:

"America is inevitably tainted – and Britain by association – with the unanswerable charge that it has used the tactics of the Gestapo in the name of freedom." (http://www.independent.co.uk/ opinion/commentators/dominic- lawson/dominic-lawson-gestapo- tactics-in-freedoms-name-415613.html)

Samantha’s Christmas Cards – And Other Scandals

All around us, unseen, our media are being continuously cleansed, pore-deep, of important rational comments for the simple, crude reason that they threaten profits.

Last month, Nick Clayton, a columnist at the Scotsman for 12 years and formerly its technology editor, reported that advertisers were leaving the paper in favour of online media. He wrote: "Whether you’re looking for work or a home, the web’s the place to go."

Clayton was fired for writing this. He commented on his sacking:

"I really don’t understand why I’ve been fired… I was merely reporting what estate agents had said to me about advertising in newspapers." (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=42095)

Freelancers aren’t fired, just waved away. Last month, Greg Philo of the prestigious Glasgow University Media Group submitted a powerful article, ‘More News Less Views’, to the Guardian’s Comment is Free (CiF) website. Philo wrote:

"News is a procession of the powerful. Watch it on TV, listen to the Today programme and marvel at the orthodoxy of views and the lack of critical voices. When the credit crunch hit, we were given a succession of bankers, stockbrokers and even hedge-fund managers to explain and say what should be done. But these were the people who had caused the problem, thinking nothing of taking £20 billion a year in city bonuses. The solution these free market wizards agreed to, was that tax payers should stump up £50 billion (and rising) to fill up the black holes in the banking system. Where were the critical voices to say it would be a better idea to take the bonuses back?

"Mainstream news has sometimes a social-democratic edge. There are complaints aired about fuel poverty and the state of inner cities. But there are precious few voices making the point that the reason why there are so many poor people is because the rich have taken the bulk of the disposable wealth. The notion that the people should own the nation’s resources is close to derided on orthodox news." (http://www.medialens.org/ forum/viewtopic.php?p=9838#9838)

He added:

"At the start of the Iraq war we had the normal parade of generals and military experts, but in fact, a consistent body of opinion then and since has been completely opposed to it. We asked our sample [of TV viewers] whether people such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Naomi Klein and Michael Moore should be featured routinely on the news as part of a normal range of opinion. Seventy three per cent opted for this rather than wanting them on just occasionally, as at present."

Matt Seaton, the CiF editor, rejected the article on the grounds that "it would be read as a piece of old lefty whingeing about bias". (Email from Greg Philo, September 30, 2008)

This from the same website that has just published Anne Perkins’s analysis of the merits of different leaders’ wives. Sarah Brown, wife of prime minister Gordon, and Samantha Cameron, wife of Tory leader David, are doing so much better than "that awful Cherie" Blair, it seems:

"Brown is unflashy and sincere. Cameron is cool and elegant. The joke is they could be sisters, with pretty but unacademic Samantha and the older, not quite as pretty but dead brainy Sarah." (http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/2008/oct/01/cherieblair.women)

Samantha "keeps her mouth shut and looks cool and stylish", although there have been gaffes: "no one mentions those packs of Smythson’s Christmas cards (£5.70 each, £57 for 10)". And so on…

We found this within seconds of visiting the site – there are limitless comparable examples. At time of writing, Perkins’s article has garnered 15 uninspired comments, including: "It is a very silly Daily Mail sort of article as others say, but this is the way the Guardian is going, alas."

As we ourselves know, where dissidents can’t be sacked, patronised or ignored, legal action is always an option.

CanWest, one of Canada’s largest media companies, is the owner of newspapers, radio and television stations, and online properties. CanWest founder, Israel (Izzy) Asper, a strong supporter of Israel’s right-wing Likud party, reportedly told the Jerusalem Post:

"In all our newspapers, including the National Post, we have a very pro-Israel position… we are the strongest supporter of Israel in Canada." (http://www.zcommunications.org/ znet/viewArticle/18899)

The Guardian noted that Asper "was highly critical of any perceived anti-Israeli position in the media, particularly the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s coverage of the Middle East, which he suggested had anti-Semitic overtones". (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news /2003/oct/16/guardianobituaries)

Responding to this consistent pro-Israeli stance, the Palestine Media Collective produced a satirised version of CanWest’s Vancouver Sun newspaper on the theme of the 40th anniversary of the Israeli Occupation in 2007. This included stories such as: "Study Shows Truth Biased against Israel, By CYN SORSHEEP." (http://redstaterebels.org/2008/09/ profits-and-free-speech-in-Canada/)

In response, CanWest hit the media collective with a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) claiming a violation of trademark law. Because the writers were initially anonymous, CanWest sued the printer and another activist, Mordecai Briemberg, who had passed out copies. Robert Jensen, professor of journalism at the University of Texas, takes up the story:

"Such a suit is legitimate only when the plaintiff can show there’s a reasonable likelihood that people will confuse the fake with the real and that some harm will result. In this case, there clearly is no confusion and no harm, and hence no serious claim. But CanWest presses on.

"Calling the [Palestine Media] Collective’s paper ‘a counterfeit version’ that amounts to ‘identity theft,’ CanWest seems to want to frame this as a kind of intellectual-property terrorism: ‘This piece was not satirical. It was not a clever spoof. It was a deliberate act to mislead and misinform thousands of people by using the actual Vancouver Sun masthead, logo and layout," reads a company statement on the case." (Jensen, (http://www.zcommunications.org/ znet/viewArticle/18899)

Briemberg initially sought coverage of his plight from the Canadian press without success. He then approached the international press, including the Guardian, with an opinion piece. The Guardian directed him to their Comment is Free website, which has ignored him.

The Index Censorship has run an edited version of his op-ed here: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=560

A Seriously Free Speech Committee has also been formed to help with honorary members such as Naomi Klein, John Pilger, Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman, and many others: http://seriouslyfreespeech.wordpress.com/

There has so far been no mention of this story in any UK newspaper.

Part 2 will follow shortly…

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us:
Email: editor@medialens.org

This media alert will shortly be archived here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/08/081002_intellectual_cleansing_part1.php

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate

Please visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

We have a lively and informative message board:
http://www.medialens.org/board

Israel shuts down BBC in Hebron

tim — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:38:36 +0000

The IDF shut down BBC radio transmitters in Hebron on Wednesday, acting on orders of the Communications Ministry and citing interference with communications at Ben-Gurion International Airport.

The IDF Spokesman said the transmitters were illegal, adding that the Communications Ministry had found them to be jeopardizing contact between Ben-Gurion’s control tower and passenger aircraft.

BBC employees had raised the issue during a press conference held by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Wednesday. A government official said in response that in addition to the BBC’s transmitters, a number of additional transmitters had been shut down, including some inside Israel, as they were “endangering civilian aviation, a problem we have been suffering from for a long time.”

The official added that the BBC was broadcasting on a wavelength allocated to it by the Palestinian Authority without prior coordination with the Communications Ministry. “We are now trying to solve the problem,” the official said.

In a statement, the BBC confirmed that its “FM broadcasts in the city of Hebron ceased late yesterday morning. The BBC understands that the Israeli Ministry of Communication instructed contractors, accompanied by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), to visit the transmission site and confiscate a transmitter and other equipment. We understand there were similar visits to two other private stations in the vicinity.”

The BBC added that it had had “no contact from the Israeli authorities relating to aircraft interference resulting from our FM broadcasts since broadcasts started in Hebron in March this year. The BBC has implemented technical protocols to prevent interference from its broadcasts, however there are any number of factors that could produce interference.

“We have requested that our equipment be returned immediately. We are now in discussion with the Israeli authorities and are aiming to resolve this matter as soon as possible.”

Censored by Money

Tim Holmes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 03:09:37 +0000

After every test case, the media assume the worst is over: that Britain’s libel laws, designed to protect the powerful from public scrutiny, have been fanged, and freedom of speech will no longer be treated like a crime. And then it gets worse.

On the website of Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, you can read a letter his publishers have received from the law firm Schillings(1). It contains something I have never seen before: a threatened injunction against a book they haven’t read and that won’t be published until September. Acting on behalf of the “private security contractor” Tim Spicer, Schillings gave the publishers three days (the deadline was last Friday) to guarantee that the book does not defame its client, or face “an injunction to restrain publication”.

No publisher can afford to ignore a letter like this. Though libel is a civil rather than a criminal matter in this country, the consequences can be much graver than most criminal convictions. I would rather go to prison for a few weeks for committing a crime than spend five years fighting a libel case, then lose my house and my savings. It is better to be caught mugging than to be caught speaking freely.

If someone launches a sustained and malicious campaign of false charges against another person, and that person is given no opportunity to demonstrate that he is being wronged, he should be allowed to seek redress. But the libel laws of England and Wales are tilted so heavily against the defendant and involve such monumental costs that they amount, in effect, to censorship by private interests: a sedition law for the exclusive use of millionaires. While in the United States the plaintiff must prove that the claims against him are false, in English law the defendants’ claims are presumed false until proven otherwise: he has to demonstrate his innocence. If his defence fails, he must pay both costs and damages. The plaintiff’s lawyers make little attempt to limit their costs: the partners at one well-known firm charge £750 an hour(2). The bill can rise to millions.

Perhaps you don’t live in England or Wales, so you think this has nothing to do with you. You’re wrong. English libel law now applies to everyone on earth. Make any accusation, anywhere in the world, and if the subject can demonstrate that a single person in England or Wales has read it, you could be sued here for every penny, cent, rouble, rupee or renmimbi you possess. The internet and the global nature of publishing ensure that these mediaevel laws have become the most powerful extra-territorial legislation ever drafted.

Yesterday two men with whom I seldom agree, the US senators Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman, launched a new bill, called the Free Speech Protection Act, to defend US citizens against English libel law. Our laws, they argue, threaten the “free-flowing marketplace of ideas” which “enables the ideals of democracy to defeat the totalitarian vision of al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.”(3) English libel law is an international menace, a national disgrace, a pre-democratic anachronism. It defends crooks, terrorists and tyrants from investigation. It threatens the free speech of people all over the world and causes untold damage to the reputation of this country. And neither the British government nor the British parliament gives a damn.

Every few years the newspapers fill with optimistic headlines about the death of these repressive laws. In 1999, they were deemed to have been neutralised by the case of Reynolds v Times Newspapers, when the law lords established that a journalist could use the defence of public interest if he had acted responsibly, even if he could not prove his allegations. But the criteria for responsible journalism were so narrowly defined that this defence has seldom succeeded. In 2006 the laws were deemed to have died again when the Wall Street Journal successfully used the Reynolds defence in the House of Lords, overturning a case brought by the Saudi businessman Mohammed Jameel(4). Last year they died once more when the court of appeal found that the investigative journalist Graeme McLagan had acted responsibly when he claimed that a former police officer had taken a bribe from a criminal(5,6). But today Britain’s libel lawyers are more active than ever before.

They have developed a lucrative new line in shutting down websites. This is the second time, for example, that Craig Murray has come to the attention of Schillings. Last year it closed his site and several others by threatening the companies which host them – internet service providers (ISPs) –– with libel suits on behalf of Alisher Usmanov, the Uzbek-Russian billionaire with a major share in Arsenal football club(7,8,9). ISPs are especially vulnerable to the libel laws. Most of them have no stake in the contents of the sites they host and have no means of deciding whether the material they contain or the complaints it generates are true, but they carry as much liability as the people who write defamatory blogs. They can be sued even over the throw-away remarks of anonymous posters on comment threads – this is one of the reasons why the Comment is Free threads have to be edited by the Guardian. Some lawyers don’t bother to write to the authors of contentious web pages, but deal only with the ISPs, knowing that they are likely to surrender at the first whiff of gunpowder(10).

Some of the successful cases appear to me to be remarkably petty. Last year the directors of the Sheffield Wednesday football club sued the fan site Owlstalk to force it to reveal the identity of 11 anonymous contributers to its forums, who had made derogatory comments about them(11). The controversial childcare guru Gina Ford obliged the site Mumsnet to apologise and pay her legal costs, after bloggers had alleged, among other accusations, that she had been “strapping babies to rockets and firing them into South Lebanon”(12). Who but Ms Ford could have taken this seriously? The blogger Richard Brunton tells a shocking story of the threats he received from a leisure company (which he is now too frightened even to name) after contributors to his site had made adverse comments about some of its products(13). Such threats could bring an end to critical online reviews. The internet butterfly is repeatedly broken upon the wheel of England’s mediaevel laws.

In 2002, the Law Commission, a statutory body, recommended that the libel laws be reformed to protect ISPs(14). Since then the government has done nothing. British ministers love these censors’ laws. Even the newspapers scarcely seem prepared to fight. Rather than campaign for new legislation, they simply wait for the higher courts to act, then claim victory when no such thing has been achieved. It is not as if most of the media is falling over itself to expose the misdeeds of the rich and powerful anyway: the law gives editors the excuse they need to leave billionaires alone.

As for our parliamentarians, I would like to have ended this column by naming some of these self-interested chickens, who thunder about free speech while allowing the rich to stamp on their critics. But I wouldn’t dare: they might sue me.

References:

1. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/Schillings.pdf

2. Robert Verkaik, 7th July 2008. Defame academy: the libel specialists. The Independent.

3. Arlen Specter and Joe Lieberman, 14th July 2008. Foreign Courts Take Aim at Our Free Speech. Wall Street Journal.

4. eg James M Dorsey, 16th October 2006. ‘Victory is sweet’. The Guardian.

5. Clare Dyer, 12th October 2007. Landmark libel ruling grants more freedom to journalists. The Guardian.

6. Graeme McLagan, 15th October 2007. Brought to book. The Guardian.

7. Michael Weiss, 10th October 2007. Civil Disobedience on the Web. http://www.slate.com/id/2175579/

8. Doreen Carvajal, 7th October 2007. Bloggers beware when you criticize the rich and powerful. http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/07/business/net08.php

9. http://b-heads.blogspot.com/

10. There is an interesting discussion of the problem and possible solutions at http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2007/09/

11. Bobbie Johnson, 29th October 2007. Red card for commenters. The Guardian.

12. Lucy Ward, 10th May 2007. Gina Ford wins apology over web postings. The Guardian.

13. http://weblog.brunton.org.uk/archives/2007/09/solicitors_atta.html#more

14. Clare Dyer, 18th December 2002. Internet libel laws ’stifling freedom of expression’. The Guardian.

Showstoppers

JamieSW — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:29:58 +0000

AS POLICE SEEK TO AXE ANTI-ARMS TRADE MOVIE

Yet another below the belt blow to civil liberties was struck by the Sussex Plod this Monday. The long-awaited world premier of SchMOVIES ‘On The Verge’ – the cinematic debut of the Smash Edo campaign – was cancelled after police intervention. In the days that followed, across the country venues due to show the film on the forthcoming tour have received visits from the police and licensing authorities keen to stop screenings.

Early on Monday evening, the SchNEWS crew were squeezing into our tuxedoes and ballgowns ready for the red carpet reception at local independent cinema the Duke of York’s (DoY). But barely had the first champagne cork been popped when we received a call to tell us the show was cancelled. The cinema had been contacted at 4.15pm by environmental health officer, Martin New, claiming that as the film does not have an official BBFC classification, the DoY would be in breach of their licence if the screening went ahead. The timing left the cinema with no option but to cancel. According to one source, the police then phoned the cinema and warned them that they should “bolt the doors” as these protesters were “extremely violent” and likely to try and force entry! One manager said the decision to question the film’s classification this way “was virtually unprecedented in my experience”.

Yer ever-good-in-a-crisis SchNEWS crew swiftly relocated the showing to a local pub, where around 140 people (over two screenings) were able to watch the ‘illicit’ film.

THE PLOD THICKENS

The next day, local rag the Argus ran the story as front page news: “Anti-war movie banned by council at the last minute”. They quoted top cop Chief Inspector Lawrence Taylor denying any police involvement in the sting, saying, “We would never get involved with the certification of a film – it is not something we do. It was as much a surprise to us as anyone else”. Well it must have then come as a real surprise when, the next day, B&H council’s press office confirmed that the police had in fact called them up and prompted their action.

Swiftly back-tracking, Sussex Police pinned the blame on a mysterious ‘junior officer’ (and inadvertently admitted they don’t bother knowing the law regarding showing films!): “Brighton and Hove Police were aware that ‘On The Verge’ was being shown at the Duke of York cinema. However, we do not become involved in, nor do we have knowledge of, the law relating to film certification. That is a matter for Brighton & Hove City Council. However, a junior officer, who is not based in the city, alerted the city council to the showing and they advised the cinema of its responsibilities.”. So either Lawrence Taylor was lying or his rank-and-file are showing a little more initiative than usual.

Whoever the ‘junior officer’ is, it seems she/he’s been pretty busy organising a coordinated clampdown on the film. By this afternoon venues due to show the film across the country were receiving visits from the police. Staff at the Arthouse Community Cafe in Bedford Place, Southampton were approached at 11am by police and licensing officers. Threats were made concerning their licensing if the film, due to be shown on Thursday night was screened. Jani Franck of the Community Cafe said, “I grew up in South Africa and this feels awfully familiar. This has nothing to do with protecting the public – this is nothing but censorship”.

As SchNEWS goes to press, the first tour venues in Bath, Southampton, Oxford and Chichester have all been visited and leaned on to pull the plug.

Classifications for similar independent films are not normally an issue – especially for private showings where no money changes hands (and with official BBFC certifications costing up to a grand, it would kill any local independent no-budget film making). Given that there is no swearing or nudity in the film, and that the only violence in the film is at the hands of Sussex police, offences against public morals are unlikely. But in an unusual bout of sensitivity towards the public, police decided that although it’s OK to violently attack protesters, it might disturb members of the public were they to see it on film.

Steve Bishop of SchMovies told us exclusively “We’re not exactly surprised by the police action. Yeah, the film doesn’t have a certificate but since when has this applied to productions with a budget of under five hundred quid! What next, a PG certificate for yer wedding video? The only reason they want to ban this is ‘cuz it shows ‘em in a bad light.”

Want to see the film they tried (are trying) to ban? People are re-arranging showings in many of the towns – for more info check out www.smashedo.org.uk or local Indymedia postings.

Interested in putting on a screening, e-mail: on-the-verge@hotmail.co.uk

View the trailer at www.schnews.org.uk/schmovies/index-on-the-verge

Labour Government Gags “Extraordinary Renditions” Whistleblower

Ellie Keen — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:16:37 +0000

Last Friday, the Labour government took out a high court injunction to prevent a former member of the British Special Air Services, Ben Griffin, from revealing further details about the government’s involvement in “extraordinary rendition”

The US administration coined the term to cover the practice of sending arrested terrorist suspects to dozens of detention facilities where torture is often carried out. Ever since reports of rendition and torture began to surface after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001, the British government has adamantly denied any knowledge or collaboration with these activities.

In his last public address before the gagging order came into force, Griffin told an antiwar rally, “I will be continuing to collect evidence and opinion on British involvement in extraordinary rendition, torture, secret detentions, extra-judicial detention, use of evidence gained through torture, breaches of the Geneva Conventions, breaches of International Law and failure to abide by our obligations as per UN Convention Against Torture. I am carrying on regardless.”

He called for former Prime Minister Tony Blair and his successor Gordon Brown to face trial for breaking international law.

Griffin served in the army for eight years, including a three-month tour in Baghdad working on secret joint operations with US Special Forces. He quit in 2005 because he believed the war was illegal and aimed at seizing control of the natural resources in the region.

He is strongly opposed to the tactics being employed by US occupation forces, including indiscriminate detention of people, a trigger-happy mentality among soldiers and routine torture of prisoners that is advocated through the chain of command. Although he had not witnessed torture first-hand, Griffin said, “I have no doubt in my mind that non-combatants I personally detained were handed over to the Americans and subsequently tortured.”

The secret joint US-UK task force within which he was posted was “responsible for the detention of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

He added: “British soldiers are intimately involved in the actions of this task force. Jack Straw, Margaret Beckett, David Miliband, Geoff Hoon, Des Browne, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown—in their respective positions over the last five years they must know that British soldiers have been operating within this joint US/UK task force. They must have been briefed on the actions of this unit.”

The gagging order was placed under the Official Secrets Act, which has been used repeatedly since the war began to silence critics of the occupations within the civil service and armed forces on grounds of “national security.” If he makes further disclosures relating to renditions that implicate government ministers in war crimes, he could face a jail sentence.

The Foreign Office refused to comment on the allegations on the grounds that statements are never released on the activities of Special Forces soldiers.

When allegations about the government’s involvement in extraordinary rendition first surfaced in December 2005, Blair told the press, “I have absolutely no evidence to suggest that anything illegal has been happening here at all, and I am not going to start ordering inquiries into this, that and the next thing, when I have got no evidence to show whether this is right or not. And I honestly, it is like all this stuff about camps in Europe or something, I don’t know, I have never heard of such a thing, I can’t tell you whether such a thing exists.”

And again, in March 2007, Blair assured an intelligence and security committee that “he was satisfied that the US had at no time since 9/11 rendered an individual through the UK or through our Overseas Territories.”

This position became increasingly untenable as leaks from individuals within the armed forces, such as those from Griffin and former United States Army General Barry McCaffrey, as well as numerous civil servants, conflicted with official government denials.

Responding to allegations that Britain was co-operating with renditions to the UK protectorate of Diego Garcia, an Indian ocean island that is leased to the US as an air base for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, then-Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in September 2003, “The United States Government have explicitly assured us that there have never been any prisoners in detention on any US vessels moored in Diego Garcia waters. The British Government are satisfied that this is correct.”

In December 2006, McCaffrey revealed that he knew of renditions to the base. He said of suspected terrorists, “They’re behind bars, they’re dead, they’re apprehended. We’ve got them on Diego Garcia, in Bagram Airfield, in Guantanamo.”

According to a report from the civil rights group Statewatch, “Diego Garcia has been the subject of repeated, credible and concurrent claims that the island has played a major role in the US system of renditions and secret detention.”

The mounting evidence culminated in the government being forced to make limited admissions, whilst attempting to distance itself as far as possible from the US practice of renditions and torture. A carefully worded statement to parliament on February 21 by Foreign Secretary David Miliband said that Britain had recently been made aware of two US extraordinary rendition flights, which had stopped at Diego Garcia in 2002 to refuel.

Miliband said, “Contrary to earlier explicit assurances that Diego Garcia had not been used for rendition flights, recent US investigations have now revealed two occasions, both in 2002, when this had in fact occurred. An error in the earlier US records search meant that these cases did not come to light.”

He went on to spell out that the US and UK policy on counter-terrorism will continue as before: “Our counter-terrorism relationship with the United States is vital to UK security. I am absolutely clear that there must and will continue to be the strongest possible intelligence and counter-terrorism relationship with the US, consistent with UK law and our international obligations.”

It was Miliband’s evasions and denials about UK involvement in rendition that prompted Griffin to issue a statement a few days later. He pointed out that the government always talks about rendition as purely the process of flying detainees to a foreign country in the hope of deflecting attention away from the British Army’s vital role in the first stages of the process in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said the Diego Garcia admission “pales into insignificance in light of the fact that it has been British soldiers detaining the victims of extraordinary rendition in the first place.”

“Since the invasion of Afghanistan in the autumn of 2001 UKSF [United Kingdom Special Forces] has operated within a joint US/UK Task Force. This Task Force has been responsible for the detention of hundreds if not thousands of individuals in Afghanistan and Iraq. Individuals detained by British soldiers within this Task Force have ended up in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, Bagram Theatre Internment Facility, Balad Special Forces Base, Camp Nama BIAP and Abu Ghraib Prison.”

“Whilst the government has stated its desire that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp be closed, it has remained silent over these other secretive prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. These secretive prisons are part of a global network in which individuals face torture and are held indefinitely without charge. All of this is in direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions, International Law and the UN Convention Against Torture.”

Griffin detailed human rights abuses at Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport in 2004, where individuals captured by the US/UK Task Force were detained and torture was carried out that was “systematic and sanctioned through the chain of command.” He also relates a story he was told by two soldiers that torture was carried out using partial asphyxiation and cattle prods.

Numerous human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, which has obtained damning firsthand evidence about abuses in secret detention facilities, have corroborated Griffin’s statements on abuse of detainees. Witnesses relate that the use of torture, including prolonged sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, beatings and humiliating treatment were widespread and sanctioned by commanding officers. Soldiers who objected to the treatment of prisoners were lectured on the exceptional circumstances of the “war on terror.”

The latest gagging order follows a series of similar cases where the government has forcibly silenced critics of its “war on terror” policy. Civil servant David Keogh and political researcher Leo O’Connor were jailed last year—for six months and three months, respectively—after being convicted of leaking a secret government memo from 2003, alleged to contain minutes of a meeting between then-Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George W. Bush in which the latter reportedly advocated bombing Al Jazeera’s headquarters in Qatar.

The growing body of evidence exposing the crimes of detention without trial and a global network of prison camps has also implicated countries other than the UK and US. Statewatch obtained a document in 2005 that confirmed the European Union (EU) had agreed to rendition flights in CIA planes as part of a wider programme of joint security operations with the Bush administration in 2003.

In a recent report from the European Parliament on the alleged use of European countries for the illegal transport and detention of prisoners by the CIA, the EU Rapporteur Claudio Fava said, “Many governments co-operated passively or actively (with the CIA). They knew.”

According to the report, more than 1,000 CIA-operated flights used European airspace between 2001 and 2005. It also states that detention facilities may be located at US military bases in Europe and that some EU members turned a blind eye to flights operated by the CIA being used for extraordinary rendition or the illegal transportation of detainees.

The report mentions 21 well-documented cases of extraordinary rendition in which rendition victims were transferred through a European country or were residents in a European state at the time of their kidnapping. The national governments specifically criticised for their unwillingness to co-operate with investigations were those of Austria, Italy, Poland, Portugal and the UK.

Amnesty International has previously reported on more than 1,000 flights linked to the CIA, many of which used European airspace.

President George W. Bush stated in September 2006 that “alternative procedures” were necessary to deal with the new threat of global terrorism. Thanks to the courage and conviction of those like Ben Griffin, we now know more of the substance that lies behind those ominous words.

The global network of CIA “black sites” that have been established under the pretext of the “war on terror” are being used to suppress growing opposition to the imperialist aims of the United States to control the natural resources of the Middle East and Central Asia. According to the US Congress, up to 14,000 people may have been victims of rendition and secret detention since 2001.

Oxford University & Finkelstein

Ellie Keen — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:47:09 +0000

Public letter to:
Luke Tryl
President of Oxford Union
Oxford University, UK

Dear Luke,

In spite of our differences, it was a pleasure to talk to you on the phone today, 23-10-07. Thank you for your openness and honesty. I am now following up with a letter to register my official complaint about the decision you took to remove Professor Norman Finkelstein from the “One state is the only solution for Israel” debate that was to be hold in 23\10\07 at Oxford Union. I am registering my complaint as a private individual living in Israel i am a film-maker and a reserve soldier in the Israeli Army. There are a few points that arose in our conversation, which I believe would be of wider interest than just to the two of us, so I’d like to highlight them and to share this letter with Professor Finkelstein and anyone else interested.

To reiterate our conversation, you told me that the reason for the removal of Professor Finkelstein from the debate was the intervention of certain interest parties and people pressuring Oxford Union. You identified Alan Dershowitz as one of those people and you said that he had personally demanded that Professor Finkelstein should be removed from the debate. The reason being that with Finkelstein on the “two-state” side, the debate would be too “anti Israel” and “not balanced”.

I replied that this debate was about a one-state solution versus a two-state solution; the two parties were to argue which of the two solutions might be best for Israel and the Palestinians. It was NOT to be a debate about being “pro” or “anti” Israel; therefore, whether Finkelstein was “pro” or “against” Israel was irrelevant. Finkelstein, like everyone else, has a right to be pro or against Israel and it should NOT be enough to exclude him from a debate at a place like Oxford Union. You agreed with me and you stated that this was what you thought as well. However, you were forced to drop Finkelstein due to the pressure exerted on you.

Unfortunately, with that decision you have demonstrated that “freedom of speech” in Oxford debating society is liable to be censored. You have also revealed a sad fact that even such an established and prestigious institution as Oxford, which is supposed to represent the highest ideals of the western culture, such as freedom of expression, bows down to demands of interest groups i.e. the Israeli lobby and Alan Dershowitz. I suggest that the only honorable way for you to restore your academic integrity is to officially apologize to Professor Finkelstein on his website, explaining what really happened.

I am not asking you lightly to stand up to what you believe in. I used to be in the Israeli elite paratroopers, but after what I saw and was forced to do, I vowed that I would never go back to the Army and act as a tool for enslaving 3.5 million people in their own land without any basic human rights. As a soldier refusing to go to the reserve duty (I am a member of the Courage to Refuse group of IDF officers), I live with the constant threat of imprisonment. You can appreciate therefore that I do understand ‘outside pressure’. I just wish you the courage to follow your own ideals and integrity, because as a president of the Oxford Union, your fellow students and intellectuals world over expect nothing less of you.

I wish you the best,

Ronen Berelovich

Israel

Campaigners Win Official Secrets Case Concession

Tim Holmes — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:11:13 +0000

The media has dragged a small concession from the jaws of censorship. A coalition of British media organisations has won a limited victory in an appeal against restrictions imposed on reporting the Official Secrets Act trial of David Keogh and Leo O’Connor.

Keogh and O’Connor were jailed in May for breaching the Official Secrets Act (OSA). The Old Bailey heard that Keogh, a Cabinet Office civil servant passed a memo containing minutes of an April 2004 meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair to O’Connor, a political researcher.

O’Connor, who opposed the Iraq war, placed a copy of the document into papers belonging to his boss Anthony Clarke, the Labour MP for Northampton South. The court heard O’Connor and Keogh wanted the document’s contents to become public. But, when Clarke found the memo he contacted the police.

Downing Street was made aware of the leak, but in November 2005 the Daily Mirror ran a story on the alleged contents of the memo. It said the document contained details of a conversation between Bush and Blair in which Bush discussed bombing Al Jazeera’s Qatari headquarters but was dissuaded by Blair.

The White House quickly dismissed the Mirror’s allegations. An official said: “We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response.” However, within 24 hours of the Mirror’s publication, newspaper editors were contacted and threatened with prosecution if they published the document. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, told editors “publication of a document that has been unlawfully disclosed by a Crown servant could be in breach of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act”.

During the trial Sir Nigel Sheinwald, Tony Blair’s foreign policy adviser, said that conversations between political leaders must remain confidential – even if their content was immoral or illegal. He added that publication of the document’s contents could “seriously damage relations with friendly governments”.

Prosecutor David Perry QC told the jury the OSA does not exist to prevent Governmental embarrassment but to protect the interests of the State. He said: “We are not talking about what may be embarrassing or an act of disloyalty. Even in the age of mass communication, something remains sacred.”

The interests of the State and the interests of “friendly governments” were openly taken into account during the Keogh and O’Connor trial. But it is argued that far less consideration was given to the public’s right to know. During the trial discussions related to the contents of the document were held in secret. The media and public were excluded, only the jury could hear that evidence. Publication was prohibited.

The strictures on reporting the trial were tightened when the trial judge, Mr Justice Aikens used the Contempt of Court Act to impose a further injunction preventing the media from discussing the trial and speculation about the contents of the memo in the same article. Nor were the media allowed to publish this information in two separate articles placed on the same page.

Additionally, the media was prohibited from publishing a comment made by Keogh when quizzed about the memo in open court. This placed the media in the Kafkaesque position of not being able to repeat material they had previously published and that remained available on their websites.

Seventeen British media organisations launched a joint appeal against Justice Aikens’ injunction. They were partially successful. On 30 July the Court of Appeal ruled the media could once again report allegations about the memo’s contents. However, they were warned that suggesting these allegations accurately represented the evidence given in secret could be in contempt of court. The media are still not permitted to publish Keogh’s comment. But they can say Keogh is reported to have said the contents of the document were “abhorrent” and “illegal” and that he felt the document revealed Bush to be a “madman”.

The document is reported to pertain to the time around April 2004 which was a particularly sensitive period in the Iraq war. There are numerous reports of British unease and concerns surrounding the attack on Fallujah and the use of white phosphorus at this time. This is not just an issue of media freedom. When the media is gagged the public is simultaneously blindfolded. For genuine democracy to exist an electorate needs to be able to hold their Government to account. The Iraq war has been masked by a confection of official spin and disinformation, now we are being prevented from hearing the truth behind the fiction and discovering what Blair and Bush really said behind closed doors.