Tag Archives: Propaganda

What Lies Beneath: The Agenda To Demonise Refugees

January 18, 2016 contraspin Leave a comment

The recent saturation of the Internet in anti-refugee propaganda, including via hashtags like #Rapefugees, #WhiteGenocide & #IStandWithSweden, have shocked and appalled users worldwide.

Long-held and widely-touted constitutional principles of inclusion and multi-culturalism are laying in tatters and the democratic ‘Left’ of Europe is reeling, as the hate speech extends beyond the digital realm to the formation of nationalistic vigilante mobs who are demonstrating en masse, burning down refugee centres and attacking migrants throughout Europe, Scandinavia and the entire Western World.

Echoing events and rhetoric of 1930s Germany, many cannot believe that a return to the widespread and popular denunciation of entire ethnic groups is again occurring, or that such behaviour is achieving political results.

When populations are implored to detest a demographically diverse sub-sector of society, that group is homogenised by the use of caustic and derogatory blanket terminology. That language of fascism is again manifesting.

Utterances of highly abrasive terms like ‘cockroaches‘ in reference to migrants and refugees is reminiscent of the lead-up to multiple genocides where the same word was employed as justification for the attacks – from Hitler deeming Jews ‘cockroaches‘, to Hutus using the same term to describe the Tutsis that they were massacring in Rwanda, to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, who called the Palestinian people ‘cockroaches‘ when openly proposing their wholesale annihilation.

The practice of using a repeated and heinous invective to socialise a citizenry into villifying and ultimately acting against other groups has been extensively studied.

It is well established that the precursor is the formulation and circulation of propaganda.

Anti-Muslim, Anti-Refugee, Anti-Immigrant Propaganda

Tweets like this have been appearing in their thousands, and are then copied and circulated exponentially.

Depicting what is implied to be a blonde European girl being accosted by males of Middle Eastern origin, it is easily taken at face value. However, the picture isn’t at all what it seems. The girl is not European. She is also Middle Eastern; and it isn’t a photograph at all. It is in fact, a still shot taken from a comedy video, a parody – where in the next scene, the girl is rescued by an Arabic ‘Superman’ figure, replete with costume.

In a ‘Last Week Tonight‘ episode from September, 2015 titled ‘Migrants and Refugees‘, host John Oliver calls out Fox News’ circulation of a video of what is purported to be refugees chanting ‘Allahu Akhbar‘ (God is great) on a train within Europe’s borders.

“Describing that as a new video that sheds light on the migrant crisis is a little misleading because in researching this story, we found a version of that same video uploaded onto You Tube back in 2010, well before the migrant crisis even began.” – John Oliver

Some of the propaganda comes from the obvious sources – such as Trump supporters. But a lot of it is derived from places that are less obvious, or more obscure.

Refugees Under Attack, Smeared As Rapists

You Tube is awash with countless examples of anti-Muslim/anti-refugee propaganda. The content is often obscene in nature, and although they won’t be directly linked to here, the uploads feature inflammatory titles such as:

* ‘Sweden Being Raped To Death By Muslim Migrants’

* ‘Sweden Now Rape Capital of Europe Thanks To Muslim Migrants!’

* ‘ISIS Using Refugee Crisis As A Trojan Horse’

* ‘Refugee Tsunami Will End National Sovereignty’

* ‘Why Global Elite Want To Collapse Countries Using Illegals’

* ‘NWO Using Refugee Crisis As Endgame To Create Eurabia’

* ‘Islam Is The Religion Of The NWO’

* ‘Pope Uses Migrant Crisis To Escalate Race War’

Given that Europe is directly embroiled in the turmoil, you would expect these videos to be posted by Europeans. However, a closer look at the accounts posting the content, frequently leads back to American, British and Israeli sources.

The titles mentioned above are all featured on the channel “THEINFOWARRIOR” which is an off-shoot of Alex Jones’ Info Wars. Info war indeed.

Alex Jones’ main channel also carries similar content, featuring titles like ‘Muslims Engage In Sexual Terrorism Across Europe’.

Journalist Kit O’Connell exposed how damaging Alex Jones’ content can be.

Unfortunately, that damage is also being inflicted by a multitude of other actors pushing politically-charged propaganda, to the detriment of refugees, migrants, Muslims and Islam as a whole.

‘Islamic Invasion Of Sweden Has Led To Rape Crisis‘ declares the ‘Patriots Global Alliance’ (UK).

‘Muslims Have Made Sweden The Rape Capital Of The West Vs Japan‘ says ‘thetruthdamit’, who is ostensibly an African American Trump supporter.

One of the most prolific (and apparently widely-watched) channels, is by British ex-comedian Pat Condell.

Featuring titles like ‘Message To Offended Muslims’, ‘It’s Good To Be Anti-Islam’, ‘Why I Support Israel’, ‘Sweden Goes Insane’, ‘Boo Hoo Palestine’, ‘The Rape Of Sweden’, ‘The Invasion Of Europe’ and ‘How To Insult A Progressive’, one might wish he had never quit comedy so that they could give him the benefit of the doubt.

However, the nature of his politics is abundanty clear and Condell also has a Twitter account, featuring some 47,000+ followers, on which he has posted this fascinating breakdown of the geolocations of his viewing audience.

Of his top six viewing countries, four are members of the Five Eyes alliance and one is Israel.

The Elephant In The Room

The elephant in the room is that the REAL rape epidemic is global in nature and pre-dates the migrant crisis by, frankly, eons.

Rape being used to push a political agenda that is to the benefit of governmental and military interests, rather than the interests of rape victims themselves, is an oft-employed information warfare tactic that has been used in everything from passing legislation that is unfavourable to civil liberties, to smearing Julian Assange.

On Twitter, accounts featuring traumatising and emotive profile pictures of rape victims are used to push xenophobia and notions of white supremacy.

This is the reality that none of them will dare acknowledge: that sexual violence and rape is and always has been at epidemic levels in Western civilisation – where assaults are frequent and widespread; reporting, arrest and conviction statistics are abysmal and sexual aggression, misogyny and rape apologism are commonplace and tacitly endorsed if not constantly celebrated and perpetuated by mainstream media, political and pop culture.

This recent portrayal of rape, gang rape and sexual assault as being a ‘Muslim’, ‘Islam’, ‘Middle Eastern’, ‘Third World’ or ‘refugee’ problem is a completely disingenuous display of wanton ignorance.

While some may argue that the alleged scale of the attacks seen in Cologne and elsewhere mark a turning point – and they certainly are heinous and deplorable crimes – the statistics demonstrate that in fact the United States remains the global center of rape and sexual assault, with 1 in 6 women experiencing sexual assault within their lifetime, and 1 in 4 college students.

According to this link Sweden already was the so-called ‘rape capital of Europe’ in 2010, despite the fact that its rape statistics are constantly touted as being a result of the recent influx of migrants.

So what, or more pertinently, who is behind the refugee propaganda? Whose interests do the rise of nationalism and the far-Right really serve?

[Author’s note: this article was originally composed on January 18th, 2016. It was the prequel to “The Agenda To Destabilise Europe” but sat on a publishing queue of another website for some months before now being published here.]

Written by Suzie Dawson

Twitter: @Suzi3D

Official Website: Suzi3d.com

Journalists who write truth pay a high price to do so. If you respect and value this work, please consider supporting Suzie’s efforts via credit card or Bitcoin donation at this link. Thank you!

Jeremy Corbyn

Music To The Ears Of Entitlement

December 13, 2015 contraspin 6 Comments

“We have allowed our party to be hijacked by people joining by text for three quid” – Unknown Labour MP (quoted by Guardian columnist Andrew Rawnsley)

As any career journalist will tell you, the first paragraph of your article must have a killer hook in these days of fickle, easily bored readerships. Tim Ross, senior political correspondent at The Daily Telegraph doesn’t disappoint:

Jeremy Corbyn’s close associates are secretly planning to purge the shadow cabinet of moderate MPs who disagree with his radical, anti-war policies, as he seeks to impose his will on the Labour Party.

It’s a masterpiece:

Secret: Sly/underhand/undemocratic.

Purge: Echoes of Stalin.

Moderate MPs: Supporters of a war that – by any even slightly honest and accurate examination of the actual situation in Syria – is insane.

Disagree: Implies Corbyn is acting in a dictatorial manner in choosing his cabinet when leaders of all political parties routinely do so.

Radical anti-war policies: Standing against yet more mass slaughter (and taking into account other recent catastrophic interventions) that serves only to send stocks in arms manufacturers higher is ‘radical’ in this enlightened era.

Impose his will: Just in case you missed it a few words earlier: Corbyn acts like a dictator – Stalin, subtly foreshadowed by our intrepid keeper of the sacred trust of the fourth estate, is the man Mr. Ross has in mind for us.

One should not expect anything different from this particular newspaper, but inversion of the concepts of ‘moderate’ and ‘radical’ lies at the heart of corporate media propaganda. In order to protect and sustain the crony capitalist system that is condemning billions to inescapable poverty and dozens of nations to war and chaos while enriching a tiny, privileged class all as the environment is ravaged, the single key issue that must be hammered relentlessly home is that the system as it stands, while not perfect, is nonetheless the only option we have; the only viable way of allocating the resources of the planet. Any alternative vision, no matter how well conceived or by whom, is unanimously condemned as naive, idiotic, clueless and even as a dire threat to national or global security. As for the brave soul proposing such an alternative, he or she can look forward to being smeared in every way imaginable until they are no longer a threat.

An integral part of this obscenely skewed version of reality is the concept of ‘leadership’, the unquestioned and unquestionable idea that some among us are endowed with certain intangible qualities of character that can lead us through the dark and into the light. By an astounding coincidence, in Western democracies, these people who are portrayed as born to lead must also toe the establishment line.

In the US this means unqualified support for foreign policy: the continuation of the operation of hundreds of bases in foreign nations; unconditional backing of Israel no matter how murderous and insane the actions of its government may be; the continuation of the drone campaign that has killed thousands of completely innocent people including kids, toddlers and babies; and support of the status quo with regard to blanket surveillance as well as the electoral system and campaign donations.

In the UK it is broadly the same: support for foreign adventures and Israel along with the US as well as the UK’s electoral system that ensures only establishment-friendly political parties and their filtered representatives have any chance of power. [It is worth noting here that the reason Jeremy Corbyn has been subjected to the most comprehensive media smear campaign in history is because he has slipped through the cracks and must be stopped at all costs, as the quotation at the beginning of this article demonstrates.] It also means support of the British royal family.

From a Guardian report:

Britain is “deeply elitist” according to a report by the government’s Social Mobility and Child Poverty commission, with people educated at public school and Oxbridge creating a “closed shop at the top”.

Andrew Sparrow writes today: The Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission said its study of the social background of those “running Britain” was the most detailed of its kind ever undertaken and showed that elitism was so embedded in Britain “that it could be called ‘social engineering’”.

The report shows that in many of the UK’s top professions there is a hugely disproportionate proportion of privately educated people compared to the general profile of the UK population.

Just 7% of the UK public attended private school, which compares to 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, 55% of Whitehall permanent secretaries and 50% of members of the House of Lords.

The rate is also disproportionately high in other influential roles: 44% of people on the Sunday Times Rich List, 43% of newspaper columnists and 26% of BBC executives were all educated privately.

Just one in 100 members of the UK public was educated at Oxbridge, however graduates from those two universities make up 75% of senior judges, 59% of cabinet posts, 57% of permanent secretaries, 50% of diplomatics, 47% of newspaper columnists, 44% of public body chairs and 33% of BBC executives.

There is a massive disparity in representation of the public at large. The enormous influence over politics and the public discourse as depicted in the media is one born of a demographic that has no experience or understanding of poverty and many of the ills that result from it. The utterly false and self-flattering idea that hard work always leads to success [and the converse] holds sway among them, their own enormous headstart that came from being born into a wealthy family or benefiting from the advantages that come from being privately educated notwithstanding:

From another article:

The report says: “Our examination of who gets the top jobs in Britain today found elitism so stark that it could be called ‘social engineering’.”

It adds that the “sheer scale of the dominance of certain backgrounds” raises questions about whether getting a top job is about ability or knowing the right people.

[Commission Chair] Mr Milburn said: “Where institutions rely on too narrow a range of people from too narrow a range of backgrounds with too narrow a range of experiences they risk behaving in ways and focusing on issues that are of salience only to a minority but not the majority in society.

“Our research shows it is entirely possible for politicians to rely on advisors to advise, civil servants to devise policy solutions and journalists to report on their actions having all studied the same courses at the same universities, having read the same books, heard the same lectures and even being taught by the same tutors.

“This risks narrowing the conduct of public life to a small few, who are very familiar with each other but far less familiar with the day-to-day challenges facing ordinary people in the country.”

All of which brings us to the much-lauded closing speech in the House of Commons by Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn. The reactions from within the media class were almost unanimously gushing.

A selection:

“Quite extraordinary scenes: some Tory MPs even giving Hilary Benn a standing ovation” – Deputy Political Editor of BBC News, James Landale.

“For those of us who thought Hilary Benn had failed to inherit his father’s rhetorical gifts, it’s time to reconsider” – The Guardian columnist (and 2014 Orwell Prize winner) Jonathan Freedland.

“I think that is the finest speech I’ve ever heard in the Commons, and delivered under such pressure” – The Spectator political editor James Forsyth.

“Long after most have forgotten the detail of the House of Commons debate…many will remember the words of Hilary Benn.” – The Times

[Sources: Media Lens Twitter timeline]

But what did Benn actually say?

Now I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties. However, unlike Daesh, none of us today act with the intent to harm civilians. Rather we act to protect civilians from Daesh, who target innocent people.

See how the civilian deaths that are certain to occur (and already have occurred) are so deftly brushed off. We apparently protect civilians by bombing the places where they live, but that’s OK because Daesh target innocent people; unlike us, who will in fact be targeting people who will certainly be completely innocent. Could Kafka have done better?

With the delicate consciences of the UK’s elected representatives expertly salved, Benn moved to close the deal:

Now Mr Speaker, I hope the House will bear with me if I direct my closing remarks to my Labour friends and colleagues on this side of the House. As a party, we have always been defined by our internationalism. We believe we have a responsibility one to another. We never have and we never should walk by on the other side of the road. And we are here faced by fascists. Not just their calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us here tonight, and all of the people that we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. They hold our democracy, the means by which we will make our decision tonight, in contempt. And what we know about fascists is that they need to be defeated. And it is why, as we have heard tonight, socialists and trade unionists and others joined the International Brigade in the 1930s to fight against Franco. It’s why this entire House stood up against Hitler and Mussolini. It is why our party has always stood up against the denial of human rights and for justice. And my view, Mr Speaker, is that we must now confront this evil. It is now time for us to do our bit in Syria. And that is why I ask my colleagues to vote for this motion tonight.

Contempt! All a great orator needs to do, it appears, is keep repeating an emotive noun that feeds into the false notions of an ignorant, fearful and confused populace. This was George Bush all over again telling us that they hate us for our freedoms, an ignorant and simplistic assertion. Writer Sheldon Richman explains:

Let’s give these members of the American elite their due: one has to work hard to make a mystery of anti-American (and anti-Western) terrorism emanating from the Middle East. It takes prodigious effort to maintain an air of innocence about San Bernardino and Paris, because no one who claims to be informed can plead ignorance of the long history of U.S. and Western imperialism in the Muslim world. This includes the CIA’s subversion of Iranian democracy in 1953, the U.S. government’s systematic support of compliant autocratic and corrupt Arab monarchies and dictatorships, its empowering of Iraqi Shi’ite Muslims, and its unconditional backing of Israel’s brutal anti-Palestinian policies. (The savage 2014 war on Gaza killed many noncombatants.)

In the 10 years before the 9/11 attacks the administrations of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton bombed Iraq while maintaining an embargo, most especially on equipment for the water and sanitation infrastructure the U.S. Air Force had destroyed during the Gulf War. Half a million children died. This was also when U.S. officials promised, then reneged on the promise, to remove U.S. forces from the Islamic holy sites in Saudi Arabia.

From the air Americans routinely kill noncombatants in Syria and Iraq, most recently this week, when “at least 36 civilians, including 20 children, in a village in eastern Syria” were reportedly killed, according to McClatchyDC. Do Americans notice? Of course not. That’s why San Bernardino and Paris can be made to appear so mysterious.

Things like this happen all the time. The U.S. attack on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, was especially egregious against this background of war crimes.

The UK’s establishment media love Hilary Benn and despise Jeremy Corbyn. They love the rhetoric and reserve no patience for the detailed facts and expert analysis (as urged by Corbyn) a situation as complex as this requires. We simply have to do something because they have contempt for our values. These are the words of a real leader – decisive, strong, born…entitled…to rule and it is music to their ears because that is how they also think. Democracy is all well and good until it gets in the way of the people who know by their very nature what is best for all of us. The wise caution exhibited by Corbyn and other opponents is easily depicted as ‘weak’ and ‘doing nothing in the face of an implacable enemy’. Benn is their vision of a real leader because he keeps it simple and speaks like one of them, facts and caution be damned. Benn is one of us: welcome to our exclusive club.

The adulation poured over Benn has nothing to do with love or concern for the nation and its security: indeed, it is entirely cynical. The media need a viable replacement for Corbyn if they succeed in bringing him down and what better preparation than to build someone up as Churchillian, someone who can return the Labour Party to ‘grown-up’ politics and put the naive children like Corbyn back in their playpen where they can’t do any damage? In other words, to ensure that the fake duopoly that ensures the rich remain in control whoever wins the election is restored.

Supporters of the airstrikes on Syria are deeply ignorant – wilfully or otherwise – of the facts on the ground. They may or may not be aware of the vast geopolitical/commercial interests in the region, interests that will be opened to plunder with Assad out and a Washington-friendly administration installed. Lack of awareness may be forgivable for the average person on the street, but it most certainly is not for those tasked with making such momentous decisions or reporting on them, officials and watchdogs entrusted by the public to ensure that decisions made in their name are done so with honest, objective and exhaustive consideration of all the information available. With Syria, this has demonstrably not occurred, with politicians and the bulk of the media keen instead to focus on the tub-thumping, substance-free oratory of a warmonger.

The politicians and journalists who sold this war have the blood of innocents on their hands, as they did with Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and dozens of other ‘interventions’ throughout history. They remain unrepentant and serve in effect as shills for the deeply corrupt arms industry: armed and dangerous.

[Note: For more on Benn’s speech, read the latest Media Lens analysis].

Written by Simon Wood

Twitter: @simonwood11

Edward Snowden

Sign Of The Times

June 16, 2015 contraspin 17 Comments

“We don’t go into that level of detail in the story; we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment” – Tom Harper (lead reporter on latest Sunday Times Edward Snowden article)

Controversy has arisen around a recent Sunday Times story on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The article claims that the NSA documents leaked by Snowden have been hacked by Russia and China, putting the lives of agents in the field at risk. It is also a mixture of serious errors, outright falsehoods and unfounded claims made by anonymous sources. One source is quoted as saying that Snowden has ‘blood on his hands’, not the first time that such a claim has been mendaciously deployed for dramatic effect.

Many of the claims in the article have already been debunked by serious critics here, here, and most powerfully here by Glenn Greenwald, the journalist Snowden chose to give his documents to.

One also needs to ask why, if it is true that UK intelligence knew that there was a possibility that the files could be hacked (and momentarily putting aside Craig Murray’s note that names of agents would never be written down) potentially compromised agents were not withdrawn immediately and replaced where possible. If they really were so concerned about the threat to the lives of their agents, why wait until after the documents were hacked (if they were as claimed). The obvious course of action in such a scenario would be to withdraw any such agents from the field as soon as possible in order to minimize the damage.

The focus of this analysis, however, is on the widespread use of anonymous sources, especially within newspapers of record. The Snowden furor is the tip of the iceberg. One recent example of the use of anonymous sources is the repeated evidence-free assertions of build-ups of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, usually accompanied by a strong implication that Russia is about to invade. When such assertions are published on Reuters or the other major ‘wires’, the financial and methodological realities of modern media ensure that the stories will be republished word-for-word everywhere, not only on internet news sites like Yahoo and Google, but also on major blogs and in low-quality independent media. [Aside: High-quality independent media would only print such claims with strong disclaimers while pointing out similar instances in the past].

In other words millions will read and ingest parts of the story and, when the next drama in the news cycle comes along, will forget everything apart from the few soundbites they vaguely recall: ‘blood on his hands’, for instance. As the vast majority of casual news readers have no familiarity with or serious interest in the details of the Snowden case (with some falsely believing, for example, that he gave the documents to WikiLeaks) or indeed in most other serious political or social issues, the damage will have already been done. This, in a nutshell, is why soundbites are so prized and ubiquitously used by PR and advertising firms.

Anonymous sources have been used in several important stories over the years and the most instructive example of how devastating such irresponsible media reporting can be is the destruction wrought upon Iraq. The New York Times and other newspapers relied on anonymous sources to allege the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The term WMD itself is one of the most successful soundbites of all time, with the acronym widely used at the time and even now in casual discourse.

The claims were reported uncritically and little or no questioning of the official government position could be found as the drums beat relentlessly for war. We now know that these claims were fed to the media in full knowledge that they were false or amplified, and history tells us that no WMDs were there.

Fast forward to 2015. Nobel Prize recipient Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) released a report entitled ‘Body Count’ this year that concluded that over a million people had been killed in Iraq since 2003 as a result of the invasion. Sectarian violence continues to rip the nation apart and the outlook is bleak with the ascendance of IS in the nation. The city of Fallujah lives with the legacy of US chemical warfare, with hideous genetic deformities and other serious health issues out of control. Meanwhile Judith Miller, the star New York Times reporter, recently embarked on a media tour to promote her book explaining how she really believed what she was writing at the time, employing classic tactics of obfuscation to defuse questioning on her culpability.

The dangers of using anonymous sources are clear:

1. They allow governments, institutions and major corporations to selectively leak information that benefits their agenda.

2. They lead to a situation where no one can be meaningfully challenged on the claims. Spokesmen can plead ‘national security’ and other excuses to avoid addressing questions.

3. A claim without evidence is just that: a claim – only a starting point for a journalistic investigation; not a green light for an explosive, defamatory headline piece that will grab instant worldwide attention.

Nonetheless, there are many cases where the use of anonymous sources is unavoidable, though given the above hazards, great care must be taken. There are several types of anonymous source. A credible source could be someone with whom a journalist has cultivated a long relationship, one whose credibility has been proven time and again on the basis of accurate past stories. A first-time source, perhaps an idealistic employee like Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden, can also be credible if they provide genuine evidence for their claims and are or have also been in a position to obtain such information.

Acting on information from first-time or even known sources – even with evidence (which may be fabricated) – is risky as Newsweek discovered in 2005 when a story (now retracted) it ran about a US Guantanamo interrogator flushing a copy of the Koran down a toilet turned out to be baseless. The story sparked violent riots in Afghanistan and other nations and at least 16 people were killed.

This is where journalistic instinct and experience all come into play. A good journalist will try to corroborate a story and name as many informants as possible, while at the same time appreciating that many sources have extremely good reasons for not being named. This, of course, damages the credibility of the story and makes it only a claim. A reporter and his/her editors must bear in mind the level of credibility when presenting the story to the public, considering factors such as the availability of publishable evidence (like pictures) and the extent of credibility of sources and corroboration and give an appropriate level of prominence to any article published based on this information.

There are, however, cases when it would be irresponsible to publish; namely when a source or even multiple sources have a track record of providing false information or when a source or sources have something to gain financially or politically from the story.

In the case of the Snowden article and the UK government, it’s two for two. The UK government has lied to or misled the public in the past on numerous occasions and its assertions therefore can not be reported uncritically. Further, GCHQ has been greatly embarrassed by the exposure of its Stasi-like operations thanks to Snowden, meaning the government would therefore benefit from discrediting or smearing him.

The Sunday Times responded to criticisms of its article in the form of a ‘has-to-be-seen-to-be-believed’ interview on CNN with the lead reporter on the story, Tom Harper, taking questions from host George Howell.

Gist (significant comments in bold):

Howell: How do senior officials at 10 Downing Street know that these files were breached?

Harper: Well, uhh, I don’t know the answer to that George. All we know is that this is effectively the official position of the British government.

…

Howell: How do they know what was in them [the files], if they were encrypted? Has the British government also gotten into these files?

Harper: Well, the files came from America and the UK, so they may already have known for some time what Snowden took — uhh, again, that’s not something we’re clear on … we don’t go into that level of detail in the story we just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment.

Howell: Your article asserts that it is not clear if the files were hacked or if he just gave these files over when he was in Hong Kong or Russia, so which is it?

Harper: Well again sorry to just repeat myself George, but we don’t know so we haven’t written that in the paper. It could be either, it could be another scenario.

…

Howell: The article mentions these MI6 agents … were they directly under threat as a result of the information leaked or was this a precautionary measure?

Harper: Uhh, again, I’m afraid to disappoint you, we don’t know…there was a suggestion some of them may have been under threat but the statement from senior Downing Street sources suggests that no one has come to any harm, which is obviously a positive thing from the point of view of the West.

In short, Tom Harper knows quite literally nothing about the story. He also says that ‘no one has come to harm’, which makes the inclusion of the term ‘blood on his hands’ unconscionable. He only knows what government officials hiding behind anonymity told him. Yet armed with this spectacular lack of knowledge, he published a headline article that claimed that the files had been ‘cracked’ by the Russians and Chinese (although he doesn’t know that) and also that Snowden has ‘blood on his hands’, while again having no evidence that this is true. These are extremely serious, dangerous and defamatory claims so one would expect the inclusion of a comment from the Snowden side, or at least from one of his prominent supporters or associates. No such opportunity was provided. This also is a fundamental breach of journalistic ethics.

If one were searching for a working definition of ‘government propaganda mouthpiece’, the actions of Tom Harper and – by extension – the Sunday Times are as close as one can get. While the Sunday Times and any media outlet are at liberty at any time to publish the ‘official position of the British government’ on any issue they choose, depicting it as bombshell breaking news complete with deliberately emotive language is the height of irresponsibility.

This is a serious embarrassment for a major newspaper. A retraction, apology and full explanation must be issued for any credibility whatsoever to be regained. As the Sunday Times is unlikely to accept such an assertion, and is indeed standing by its story, can we now expect a similarly aggressive and blockbusting article on the ‘official position of the British government’ on, say, its arms sales to the Saudi regime? At least in this case the term ‘blood on its hands’ would be demonstrably accurate.

It takes a special level of indoctrination to report with a straight face righteous accusations by British government officials that anyone at all has blood on their hands. The UK, both in its colonial and modern eras, has attacked, invaded, occupied or interfered with almost every nation on the planet. Such indoctrination is a common element of establishment journalists in the UK, with many seeming to possess no awareness of how ludicrous some of their claims about the crimes of current enemies are when weighed up against the similar, documented crimes of their own nation, which they almost unfailingly depict as a benign force in the world.

For the Sunday Times to stand by this obviously bogus story, there are only two possible interpretations of its role: it is either naive about or complicit in the actions of its government. As one does not become a decision-maker in a Rupert Murdoch-owned enterprise by being a shrinking violet, the first option can be safely eliminated. The unavoidable conclusion, therefore, is that the Sunday Times in publishing this article is complicit in the aims of the UK government.