Blame the DA notice committee and its relationship with the media for the apparent lack of interest in the Guardian's exclusive
Newspapers have waded through years of Levesonian opprobrium without much mention of the DA notice committee or itsunsung efforts to keep Britain safe from harm. Yet, as the core mission of the committee states: "Public discussion of the United Kingdom's defence and counter-terrorist policy and overall strategy does not impose a threat to national security and is welcomed by the government; it is important, however, that such discussion should not disclose details which could damage national security."
What greater testimony to media responsibility could there be than a committee active since 1912 where top officials of defence, Foreign Office and Home Office sit alongside equally high representatives of the BBC, ITV, Press Association, the Mail, News International and others, pledged voluntarily to keep threats under wraps? Threats such as (see last week's Guardian) allegation that visiting delegations at 2009's G20 meetings were bugged by order of HMG?
Presumably, therefore, the week should have been filled with discussion of this outrage, devoid of supposedly damaging details. But once the specifics emerged on Monday, there was almost no discussion at all (save for in newspapers in Turkey, Germany, Russia, South Africa, the US and around the world). In Britain, the BBC examined its navel; the Mail denounced the Guardian. The story signally failed to gain traction.
Yet we haven't been told how bugging friendly nations invited to discuss urgent matters here, as our guests, posed "damaging" problems. We haven't been told why a largely quiescent, consultative arrangement designed to keep local newspapers from publishing awkward facts about defence establishments in their patch should be used to close down any "discussion" of something much broader. We have encountered only shuffling silence – some of it curiously orchestrated.
And there's a question all major media outlets need to answer directly. What, in an era of blogging mayhem, is the point of a cosy, well-intentioned grouping that aims to stifle not just debate but any real information about secret state shenanigans?Why is Joe Public supposed to trust newspapers that set confidential committee meetings above keeping him informed? How should a national broadcaster define the national interest when an MoD official feels its collar? The DA notice has trundled along, defining its role by mission creep. But it's voluntary. And if no one is prepared to discuss it openly, maybe it should just creep, unmourned, into history.
Fiery issues over BBC expenses
Too much transparency? I grow sheepish when the BBC ceremonially issues expenses for executives earning over £130,000. It's good to see taxi bills down 15%, for instance. But with individual accountings, the questions flow. Take the controller for Northern Ireland: he likes Mexican and Indian food when in London. He doesn't fly Ryanair or anything cheap. And minicab bills on home turf seem to grow like topsy in pretty fat lumps. But no background information, so too much speculation: freedom to not quite understand what's still going on.