Cameron gives gay marriage opposition the slip

The story of the summer, or at least the fortnight, has broken and the nation rejoices: the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are the proud parents of a baby boy. The breaking of tension over the baby’s sex and its actual birth has broken into universal celebrations that demonstrate as much relief as Monday night’s dramatic storms that did away with the heatwave.

One who definitely took advantage of the concentration on the royal progeny to quietly pass a key and controversial act was Prime Minister David Cameron, who saw the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill pass into law on July 17, rubber-stamped by the Queen. The decision to push the bill through when attention was elsewhere and with little fanfare, despite its momentous impact, the day before parliament took its summer recess, says a lot about how confident the Prime Minister feels about his Conservative Party at the moment.

Ever since the Same Sex Couple (SSM) Bill was first mentioned, it has courted controversy, particularly with three key groups: the Conservative Party; the religious establishment; and social coalitions not necessarily linked to either. Conservatives cried foul about the bill from an early stage, pointing to the fact that it was not in the Conservative Manifesto in the run-up to the 2010 election and describing the public consultation launched in March 2012 as an authoritarian bypassing of political tradition.

Matters came to a head when the Bill was debated in the House of Commons on May 20, 2013, and backbenchers threatened to undermine Cameron en masse, with Sir Gerald Howarth, MP for Aldershot, infamously decrying the advance of ‘the aggressive homosexual community.’

The Prime Minister’s insistence on pushing the bill through despite the resistance of his party has been described by some sectors of the party as born out of an excessive desire to portray back-benchers as outdated and anti-gay rights.

Whether that was a guiding principle behind the bill, and it seems a bit desperate if it was, certain groups have expressed concerns that the Conservative Party is haemorrhaging voters to Nigel Farrage and the UK Independence Party.

‘Former Conservative voters often list same-sex marriage as one of the reasons for switching their vote to UKIP,’ said Councillor Ben Harris-Quinney, member of Conservative thinktank The Bow Group, in an interview with the BBC in May.

At the same time, the Secretary for Defence, Philip Hammond, publicly stated his opposition to spending large amounts of parliamentary time debating the issue, stating that ‘we did not need to upset vast numbers of people in order to do this.’

The other group of people the new Act has offended is those who support marriage as a union between men and women. This is hardly a surprise; opposition to single-sex marriage has existed in all countries where similar legislation has been debated and passed.

However, representatives of the religious establishment, most noticeably the Church of England and the Catholic Church, have expressed dismay that the legislation in its current form has fudged the issue, turning marriage into an issue of equality rather than partnership.

Again, this may seem a moot point — but it isn’t. The CofE and other religious bodies in the UK have often expressed their support for civil partnerships, which recognize the union between same sex couples and infers them the legal rights of a marriage. The same institutions balk at the idea that marriage needs to be brought into it at all, accusing the government of state intervention in an institution.

In its determination to ensure equality, the government has tried to make certain that religious institutions are not forced into performing single-sex marriages in places of worship, allowing said places the freedom to opt out. By allowing some churches not to hold these marriages but stating that these can be held elsewhere, this creates two versions of marriage, as stated by Lord George Carey of Clifton, former Archbishop of Canterbury, in a collection of essays on the subject by think tank Civitas.

‘Where there was once just one view of marriage, whether church or civil, there will now be two. This introduces permanent division and dispute to marriage and drives a wedge into a previously united institution,’ states Lord Carey in his essay. ‘Extending marriage to include same-sex couples will not deliver greater social endorsements but rather it will imperil traditional marriage by a changed definition of the institution.’

This is the intellectual religious opposition. Of course, there are many who express something closer to anger that such an ancient institution is being defiled — and who aren’t explicitly connected with the church. Numerous groups have emerged, including the Coalition for Marriage and the less subtly titled Gay Marriage, No Thanks. The latter group took out a full page advert in The Times on June 17th expressing its opposition to the bill in ten reasons, while the Coalition for Marriage has a petition in defence of the institution, with just under 700,000 signed up so far.

‘From our polls, we’ve found 70 per cent of people oppose the redefinition of marriage. This is an undemocratic move that wasn’t in any party manifestos, which has ignored recommended amendments and legal advice,’ said a spokesman for Coalition for Marriage to the Buenos Aires Herald. ‘This was a rushed strategy, which will have a negative impact and prejudice those religious institutions and people who support marriage.’

In reality, this sort of opposition exists everywhere where the issue is debated; current Pope Francis was equally vocal against the measure when it was passed by the Cristina Fernández de Kirchner administration in Argentina in 2010. However, it is the manner of the passing of the law here that has also dismayed equality supporters.

Unlike France, where same-sex marriage legislation was recently passed to great celebration, Cameron and his government appear to have hastily thrown together a law that alienates the Conservative Party and a certain section of their voters, forced it through parliament despite vociferous condemnation by the Church and politicians, and allowed it to be passed the day before Parliament went on holiday for the summer.

At the same time, the law has created a double institution of marriage. For legislation that is allegedly aimed at increasing equality, this doesn’t sound too much like equal treatment, and a lot more like a play from a leader desperate for support.

First published in The Buenos Aires Herald on July 24, 2013

Royalty provide solace in news drought

LONDON - And so begins the summer proper. For the media, this is a problem. Not for nothing is this time of year known as the Silly Season. The news, for the first time in a while, is starkly devoid of the critical coverage that characterizes the British media for most of the calendar year. When sport becomes front-page news, as the Ashes did over the weekend and the Tour de France and drug-cheat athletes have in the last few days, this is a clear indication of a news drought.

This is not to say that there have not been serious events worthy of coverage. The violence in Northern Ireland, where rioters have clashed with each other and the police on every night since Friday, has seen the wounding of policemen and the recalling of Parliament in the country but, unfortunately, this is an annual occurrence, and is therefore not taken entirely seriously or given much coverage by the UK media.

In the same vein, the death of two reserve soldiers, who allegedly died exhausted while training in the Brecon Beacons on Saturday in Wales on the hottest day of 2013 (so far), has elicited sadness and regret, and statements from politicians. However, again, coverage has been minimal. Death and violence do not fit the summer narrative.

Instead, the British media has turned toward its perennial focus: the Royal Family. The Duchess of Cambridge, formerly known as Kate Middleton, is expecting her child at any moment. The original due date was Saturday, and now the world waits with bated breath as the days tick by. Will the birth be this week? Journalists await the birth feverishly camped outside St Mary’s Hospital, where the child is due to be born (Kate herself is at her family home an hour away in Bucklebury).

Meanwhile, offices hold sweepstakes on the date and sex of the Royal-to-be, and several strains of merchandising, from the “useful” (potties, prams, mugs) to the pointless (doughnuts laced with blue or pink filling) are poised to capture the market.

After living abroad for several years, I have always been surprised at how much people in other countries know about the Royal Family and how much people seem to care. This is, of course, the success of its brand; the Royal Family is seen as both quaint and charming, and draws thousands of tourists on an annual basis.

However, the high-pitched anxiety over the birth in the UK, with every single possible detail scrutinized by the media, is truly something to behold. Metro, a free newspaper available on public transport, demonstrated both a fascination and a light reproach of the monarchy on page two on Monday: William, Duke of Cambridge, was pictured playing polo after being given “the day off” by the mother-to-be.

This is the dichotomy, the inherent juxtaposition of the Royal Family that both inspires interest and reproach. They clearly lead very different lives from us, but at the same time experience things that normal people do. Marriage, birth, death, taxes — these are fundamental aspects of life, which many people undergo, but unfortunately, when the monarchy does so, as it must, it is open to scrutiny that even the best people would struggle with.

This juxtaposition was demonstrated clearly yesterday, beyond the baby: William’s father, Prince Charles, hit headlines after MPs expressed their concern about his tax arrangements. William Nye, the principal private secretary to the Prince and the Duchess of Cornwall, and Keith Willis, the finance director of the Duchy of Cornwall, were grilled by MPs over Charles’s voluntary tax contributions. Margaret Hodge, chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee stated that she was “not comfortable” with the arrangements as they stood and suggested that the Prince should be paying corporation tax.

The figures are not negligible: newspaper reports yesterday stated “the Duchy, which provides an income to the heir to the throne, is a £762-million estate of about 131,000 acres. The Prince of Wales received a record £19 million from the Duchy last year.” The parliamentary committee, which also investigated giants Amazon, Starbucks and Google over tax avoidance, compared the Prince’s estate with these companies.

The coverage of these two aspects has clearly demonstrated, once again, the media’s love-hate relationship with the Royals: adoration of the young couple to the point of hysteria, and mistrust of the older generation and their less than transparent financial dealings. This is a family, which experiences the joys and makes the mistakes that all families make, but which they must do so under a never-failing public spotlight.

However, faced with a dearth of real “hard news”, the British media has turned to the Royal Family, unfailing in its ability to provide news that is consumable both in the UK and abroad, the reliable option at times of drought. One can only pity them, and hope that the child is born sooner rather than later.

@archiewhit

First published in the Buenos Aires Herald on July 17, 2013

Miliband strikes back against the unions

LONDON — With austerity still biting hard and a prime minister fighting to keep control of his own party as well as the coalition government he leads, this would appear to be a perfect time to be a leader of the only real opposition party. Labour has opened up a lead in the polls over the Conservatives (and the Liberal Democrats), and should be in the perfect position to start consolidating as leader Ed Miliband has finally shown signs of doing.

However, events in a city in Scotland exposed over the last week have drawn back the curtain on a seething political power struggle that seemed to undermine much of the gains made or at least, until yesterday.

The Falkirk Crisis, as it is now being referred to, was caused by a report from the Labour party’s election committee following up claims that Unite, the most powerful trade union in the UK, had attempted to rig constituency elections in the city by filling the available candidacies with people whose party dues had been paid by the union itself.

Labour last week cried foul, accused Unite of trying to rig elections and even referred the matter to the police. Cue the resignation of several ministers, including Labour’s election chief Tom Watson, and a flurry of angry counter-accusations in the media.

The reason why this has been labelled as a crisis stems back to Ed Miliband’s own election as leader after Labour was turfed out of office in the 2010 general elections. Standing as a candidate for leader against his brother, the affable, more presentable, charismatic (and essentially Blairite) David, Ed Miliband won a leadership ballot with 51 percent to his brother’s 49 percent. This was a shock at the time, although less so when it emerged that Ed’s victory was due to the unions choosing to back him and put their considerable influence behind him.

Fair enough, remarked commentators at the time, but this meant that Miliband would always be beholden to his benefactors. This has largely remained the case, but it seems that the Labour leader, who has often been criticized for his lack of leadership qualities (one source described him as a “bumbling idiot”) and forgettable presence, has now decided to make a play for independence.

It is a bold move. One of the fundamental issues at stake is funding. Unite, headed by Len McClusky, enrol up to three million members into the Labour Party each year, paying their dues and providing the party with a major source of funding. By taking on the union, Miliband is showing that he backs himself now, and no longer needs the support of his powerful former friends.

Indeed, this was illustrated yesterday, when Miliband made a speech setting out proposed reforms that would change the future of Labour. The reforms state that the party would no longer accept obligatory contributions from unions, giving people themselves the chance to “opt-in” to paying the party for membership.

As Miliband said himself yesterday, his reforms were a reaction to show “exactly the opposite of the politics we’ve recently seen in Falkirk. A politics that was closed. A politics of the machine. A politics that is rightly hated. What we saw in Falkirk is part of the death-throes of the old politics.”

These are strong words and could herald a real change for the Labour leader. Furthermore, the political reaction to the announcement has so far been positive, with plaudits being given by both former prime minister Tony Blair and McClusky himself. Commentators in the UK last night were already speculating as to whether this move could mark a dramatic sea change in the political system.

However, the question remains as to whether, just two years before the next general election, this is a gamble that could be pulled off with aplomb or whether it will scupper Labour’s chances of winning, while slashing the party’s funding. Much of the reaction to the Falkirk events before the speech were glee (from the opposition) and bewilderment from Labour supporters.

The main gripe from grassroots Labour members is that, once again, it appears that the party’s leadership seem to show little respect for the will and interest of their political heartland. The general sense among voters is that the unions should not wield as much power as they do, with 49 percent of the voting rights at party conferences. The situation faced by Labour over the last week is just the tip of the iceberg in that regard. However, at the same time, unions have historically represented the interests of their members; an attack on any union, be it Unite or a less powerful group, is perceived as an attack on their members.

There is still a long way to go before Miliband’s reforms are implemented in the Labour party and before their real impact can be discerned. Nevertheless, it is clear that this week, the Labour leader has made a move to be taken seriously, by his party and by the country. Its outcome will make or break him.

@archiewhit

First published in the Buenos Aires Herald on July 10, 2013

Fresh BBC scandal as King secedes

LONDON - Never a population to shy from criticizing establishment, Great Britain in recent years has had more than its fair share of homegrown targets. The country’s slide into austerity since 2007 has witnessed a grim, recession-tinged outlook on life, a malaise that has allowed Brits to express themselves with ever-greater bitterness. The theme of the criticism, introduced by then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his Chancellor Alistair Darling and continued with aplomb by Messer’s Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, is that those in power just do not know what they are doing.

This malaise is often compounded by the best efforts of those in positions of responsibility to improve or at least make amends. Take the BBC, for example. The BBC has suffered one of the worst periods in its history, with the slow-burning revelations within the furore surrounding the Jimmy Savile affair that the men in charge knew what was going on for decades and said nothing. The conviction of veteran broadcaster Stuart Hall on charges of paedophilia just weeks ago has done nothing to assuage anger against the corporation. The BBC, it is clear, is not in the public’s good books.

It is in this context that the National Audit Office (NAO) announced the results of an investigation into compensation paid to outgoing directors. The pay-offs, as they are being described, occurred between 2005 and the present day, and hit a total of 60 million pounds. The cost to the taxpayer, who funds the BBC through the payment of television licence fees, may have been as high as 1 million pounds, some reports suggested.

The revelations have provoked a certain degree of outrage, as the nation shakes its head once again at the crisis mismanagement and questionable decision-making rife in the BBC. One of the beneficiaries was George Entwistle, who was Director-General of the BBC in the throes of the Savile scandal and lasted 54 days on the job. According to newspaper reports on the NAO’s findings, Entwistle received an original pay-off of 450,000 pounds, followed by “36,500 pounds in various fees, including legal and PR costs, and a further 25,000 pounds, made up of another three weeks’ salary.”

The BBC was quick to respond to the announcements, with Strategy Director James Purnell appearing before a snarling Jeremy Paxman on (the BBC’s) Newsnight on Monday. Purnell described the findings as “humbling” and riddled with “extremely embarrassing mistakes,” admitting that the Corporation was at fault for how the situation had been handled. However, Purnell was adamant that the BBC would not be instigating “a witch-hunt,” choosing instead to “learn from its mistakes and move on.”

One of the most embarrassing elements about this semi-scandal is that it was not revealed by a newspaper, but by the NAO, performing an audit well within its remit of a state-funded entity. The press has reacted gleefully to the findings, as they have once again revealed the total mismanagement at a high level of a beleaguered institution. However, if Purnell is proved wrong, where the BBC goes next after this is far from clear: after so much uncertainty and instability, surely a fresh round of blood-letting and compensation pay-offs is to be avoided.

Monday also saw an actor who has been waiting in the wings for some time now take centre stage. Sir Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, stepped down after a decade at the helm, to be replaced by Canadian Mark Carney. Monday was the new Governor’s first day of work.

Anticipation surrounding King’s successor has been steadily rising since Carney’s appointment was announced in November 2012. The first non-Briton to be named Governor since the bank was established in 1694, Carney’s CV has been picked over extensively. It is widely believed that his ability to steer Canada away from the effects of the global crisis and recession while Central Bank head was a key motive for his appointment.

It has also been much stated in the press that after ten years of King’s tenancy, during which the UK has gone spectacularly bust and still remains in the doldrums, what was needed was a breath of fresh air. The former governor is symbolic of so much of went wrong with the UK and its continued struggles, that any change would have been viewed as positive – so much so that Carney’s wages (at an estimated 694,000 pounds per year, 100,000 more than King received) are hardly discussed.

The buzz surrounding the new arrival has been more tangible in the last week, with the Standard publishing a two-page feature on Carney yesterday and much being made of his wife, Diana Fox. The focus so far has been positive, albeit cagily so. The new governor courted positive publicity by turning up to work on Monday using the Underground, with some commentators making the distinction between the new governor and his predominantly chauffeured predecessor.

Carney is now entering his grace period, during which he will probably be unable of doing any wrong. The most immediate impact of his appointment will be the cultural change that he brings with him, and which is noticeable in media coverage. A society that is tired of the mismanagement and shoddiness presented by its institutions, so conveniently exemplified once more by the BBC, is ready for a breath of fresh air – as is the economy, and the government.

@archiewhit

First published in the Buenos Aires Herald on July 3, 2013

Spying on everybody, also victims

LONDON — As the adventures of globetrottingwhistleblower Edward Snowden dominate headlines around the world, the UK has been hit by allegations from a very different leaker of information. In a documentary put together by The Guardian and television Channel 4, broadcast on Monday night, a former undercover police officer revealed details of how he had been ordered to spy on the family of a young black man murdered in 1993.

These are grim revelations. The murder of Stephen Lawrence, 18, killed at a bus stop by a gang of white men on April 22, 1993, marked a significant change in how the UK dealt with racism. The subsequent investigations and botched trials also exposed a level of police involvement and cover-up that has dogged the force ever since. It has been long acknowledged that nothing the police did in the investigation it conducted was free from criticism.

The original trial, in 1993, acquitted the five suspects due to a lack of evidence, and it was not until, after a long, protracted and painful battle by the Lawrence family, new evidence was uncovered in 2011 that two of the suspects were convicted in 2012.

It has also been common knowledge for some time that undercover police officers have infiltrated activist movements. In 2011 it was suggested by some of these officers that they had not been banned from having sexual relations with activists as part of their infiltration, and only last week it was announced that an anti-McDonald’s leaflet produced by Greenpeace, known as “McLibel,” was in part written by an undercover officer.

Additional details, such as the suggestion that police officers used the names of dead children as part of their cover stories, have only increased the deeply unpleasant flavour of the case. Undercover police activities have been an embarrassing thorn in the force’s side for several years.

However, Monday’s revelations, announced by The Guardian in its daily edition in advance of the documentary shown that evening, have succeeded in connecting the two. Former undercover police officer Peter Francis stated that in the wake of the 1993 murder, he was ordered to investigate the Lawrence family and the victim’s best friend — with the explicit intention of digging up dirt that could undermine their cause.

The response, quite rightly, has been outrage. Police corruption since the first investigation has sadly become less of a surprise and more of a standard, but the notion that the police would spy on a victim’s family with the explicit remit of uncovering information that could discredit them suggests an unprecedented level of grimy disrespect and underhandedness that has come as a nasty shock to all.

The fact that no evidence against the family was uncovered, and that evidence that led to the arrest and charging of Duwayne Brooks, the victim’s best friend, was thrown out by the court, hardly make this easier to swallow.

The immediate political response has also been angry, and rightly so. Politicians from across the spectrum have totally condemned the suggested activities: David Cameron demanded the “full truth” regarding the allegations and two separate inquiries were announced yesterday by Home Secretary Theresa May — although neither of these was the public inquiry requested by the victim’s family.

The week has been revelatory because it has reminded the British public about the things that anger it. The extended story about NSA leaks and their implications regarding British intelligence are still lurking in the background, but the reaction to both the police allegations and also suggestions of how NHS whistle-blowers have been treated by the government has generated an actual backlash.

Cyber-spies and nefarious deeds in the ether are one thing; murky behaviour by those who have been entrusted to look after us in our daily lives is quite another.

As a nation, the British public is used to scandal, and even expects it to a certain degree. However, the reopening of wounds over the Stephen Lawrence case is the equivalent of lifting a very large rock and finding something truly unpleasant underneath. This is shameful behaviour and has deserved the wide condemnation it has received.

In that sense, the difference between how the public and the media in general have reacted to the NSA leaks and the most recent exposé reveals what the UK can stomach and what it can’t. International spying by governments on its citizens or others is almost run of the mill when compared with allegations that the police would actively seek to discredit the most wounded of victims.

The fact that these events happened over twenty years ago is little consolation. The grubby nature of the police force is just one of the elements of society that disgusts the British public, and these are the scandals that affect it.

What is remarkable is that although both the NSA and police allegations refer to cases in which the state is spying on its citizens, it is the latter that angers most. However,what the public deems acceptable is being defined by each subsequent scandal, broken in turn by the media — which means that our limits, the threshold of the public’s patience, are re-drawn on a weekly basis.

@archiewhit

First published on June 26, 2013

Snowden leaks not melting away

LONDON - If it had been any other weekend before any other week, it is likely that by now Edward Snowden and the NSA leaks would have been already relegated to the darkest depths of the news. However, this is no ordinary week: the G8 have been meeting in Northern Ireland, and the time was therefore ripe for some G8 related leaks.

The latest batch of revelations, that the UK government spied on its G20 counterparts in 2009 through the implementation of fake Internet cafés that allowed GCHQ spooks to read emails “while or before” they had been read by their intended recipient, seem to have been designed to directly embarrass the UK at a pivotal moment. This round of talks should be about Syria, with Friday’s announcement that Britain and the US would directly arm the rebels, and the natural confrontation that this implies with Russia.

The G20 leaks certainly hit a chord with Turkey and Russia, with claims that the former president of the latter, Dmitry Medvedev, had his phone tapped during the 2009 event. This revelation does not appear to have been at the top of the agenda for Vladimir Putin, who has been more concerned this week with refuting UK and US support for Syrian rebels and reiterating its support for the Assad regime.

The leaks did cause embarrassment in as much as Turkey put an angry call through to the British Ambassador in Ankara, Sir David Reddaway, which the Foreign Office simultaneously confirmed and played down yesterday.

Regardless of the headline-grabbing revelations, the jury remains out on the long-term impact of Snowden and his leaks. The weekend saw mounting wholesale character assassination in the UK media as well as the US, probably because Snowden still comes across as calculating and not entirely reliable with the truth.

Much has been made of the fact that he was not earning the US$200,000 he originally claimed, but closer to US$120,000, while other journalists have focused on PRISM itself. According to some, the programme was never secret, companies that participated were forced to hand over information via subpoena and it might not even be a programme. As I wrote last week, Snowden is perhaps unfortunate that he is making his break for freedom in a more cynical age.

In a move designed to generate positive PR and credibility for himself and The Guardian, the latter hosted a live webchat with Snowden on Monday, offering the analyst the opportunity to clarify doubts that had been raised in the week. The success of this move is difficult to calculate. It gave Snowden, speaking from a (naturally) “secret location” in Hong Kong, the perfect podium from which to reiterate his cause, claiming that “nakedly, aggressively criminal acts are wrong no matter the target... without asking for public permission, NSA is running network operations against them that affect millions of innocent people.”

The webchat, hosted by Snowden’s link at The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald, also gave the public another view of the man many in the US are already referring to as a “traitor.” This is part of the problem: despite or because of his best efforts, Snowden cannot help but come across as cold and calculating, as someone who has seen the bigger picture and evangelizes about the coming “truth” storm. He criticizes the media about focusing on his girlfriend, which is fair, but his language portrays him as someone who recognizes the drama of his situation and cannot wait to remind the reader of it. “The truth is coming and it cannot be stopped, “ “the US government is not going to be able to cover this up by jailing and murdering me” and “the country is worth dying for” are just a few examples of this.

In many ways, that leaves the public in exactly the same quandary they were in before the weekend. There are two narrative threads in this story: the paranoia-ridden view that Snowden is right and therefore governments are spying on their people; and the view that the government counters terrorism by spying on some people, probably not their own, and that this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Both of these threads have their faults: Snowden is simply not convincing and tends to alienate, regardless of what he says, while the greater good is not a strong enough reason to spy on people’s email in other countries, notwithstanding their suspected terrorist activities. But still.

The main problem with this story is that it’s still a story. It has been designed to cause embarrassment, which it has done so successfully, and outrage, at which it has been less successful. Let’s suppose that that next round of leaks, whenever they appear, are more damaging than anything that’s been revealed so far. What actual impact will this have on anyone’s lives, beyond possibly Snowden’s? The reality is that this story is still not important and nothing suggests it will be, particularly in the UK. The cynical age in which these revelations have appeared have just got a bit more cynical. Thanks, Edward.

—————————-

As much as it seems that the leaks will not go away, nor, apparently, will Julian Assange — who announced on Monday that he was prepared to stay in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London for “the next five years.” The announcement came after the apparent failure of a working party of Ecuadorean and British officials to reach a negotiated solution on what should be done about the Wikileaks frontman. Exactly how the Ecuadoreans feel, despite protestations that Assange should be let out “to see the sunshine” (an odd request in the UK summer) and smiles in the official press releases, is unclear.

@archiewhit

First published in the Buenos Aires Herald on June 19, 2013

Leak of the week: UK media seen through Prism

By Archie Whitworth

For the Herald

LONDON — It has been an unexpectedly confusing week in the UK for followers of the media and civil liberties. On the one hand, much of the explosion of media interest in the NSA data leaked by former contractor Edward Snowden in The Guardian and The Washington Post a week ago has been predictably dramatic. Leaks, whistleblowers and secret government activities are by their nature interesting, particularly when viewed in the context of our double post-9/11 global paranoia: “we are not safe” fits neatly as a companion piece to “we are being watched.”

However, what has been surprising is how coverage of the story has developed in the national media — because, really, the leaked news has not come as a massive shock. This may partly be due to Wikileaks, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. The cold facts, that a supposedly freedom-loving government has had direct access to what its citizens are up to through networks operated by major online companies, are of themselves much more hard-hitting than the mass of diplomatic cables leaked by Manning to Assange. The world is a more cynical place than it was when Wikileaks hit global fame in 2010; leaks are now the norm.

Another issue is the lack of a perpetuating news cycle. The story was broken expertly by The Guardian and The Washington Post over three days, culminating in the revelation of Snowden’s identity on Sunday. For those three days, the two papers were the only source of the latest installments in this drama; they owned the news. However, for several days there were no fresh developments on the data snooping operation itself (named Prism) from Sunday to Thursday.

This does not mean that there will not be more, and both The Guardian and Snowden have heavily hinted that there will be further installments — on Thursday, it was announced that the US had been spying on networks in Hong Kong and China. In the meantime, the lack of more tangible information has left other news outlets scrambling. The inevitable response has been a lot of speculation and a lot of commentary — and in some cases, silence.

In the first instance, this dearth of news has drawn the media to speculate on Snowden himself. Naturally, as Manning simultaneously stands trial for the Wikileaks revelations, there has been a lot of comparison between the two individuals. Easy links, such as their frustrated military training, high intelligence and perceived “loner” status, have been spotted and exploited. The British media has focused on Snowden’s life, taking both a low-brow approach (including tabloid focus on his pole-dancing poetry-writing girlfriend left high and dry in Hawaii) as well as broadsheet speculation over whether he faces risk of extradition by hiding in Hong Kong.

The portrait drafted by the media of Snowden depicts an individual who is quite different from Manning. Snowden, 29, appears to have planned his act long in advance; Manning was probably 21 when he started helping Wikileaks, a serving soldier and apparently in a state of psychological distress. Snowden plotted his escape to Hong Kong; Manning hadn’t even left the army. Manning may have been used by Assange, but Snowden was apparently working on his own. And so on.

These distinctions have made it easier for the media to ignore the lack of new information they have to play with. While rightwing media in the US has already begun depicting Snowden as a self-important fantasist, the UK has seen more coverage in recent days about the whistleblower and his journey than about the information itself.

An alternative response to a lack of new and updated information has been silence. The White House initially refused to comment on the scandal, while in the UK, Foreign Secretary William Hague skillfully dodged leading questions about the role of Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) in sharing information with its nearest and dearest ally.

Simultaneously, coverage on the BBC has been minimal; unlike other media groups, there has been no speculation on Snowden and his future, but even as soon as Tuesday, the biggest story of the weekend had disappeared from news bulletins on radio and TV. The silence, especially from an organization that has dragged itself through the mud repeatedly over the last year, speaks volumes.

However, perhaps the most telling response in the media over the last week, and possibly the most confusing from an outside perspective, has been the collective shrug. In terms of media scoops, “the US spies on its citizens” is fairly mundane.

As Matthew D’Ancona pointed out in Wednesday’s Evening Standard, how can individuals tacitly or explicitly accept the fact that companies know our every move online and justify it as sales tactics (step forward Messrs Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook) and then lambast governments for using the same technology to keep an eye on what goes on in their own country? To be surprised that this happens is to be naïve.

The debate has also raised questions about what people expect from their governments — brought into sharp relief by the savage murder of Drummer Lee Rigby just over three weeks ago.In the immediate wake of this attack, the concept that the attackers may have been known to the security services was used as a stick to bash the state with, but now it appears that some sectors of society would prefer less scrutiny, not more.

In part, both Prime Minister David Cameron and Hague referred to this concept this week: GCHQ activities are apparently within the law, and designed to keep this country safe. Whether this argument continues to be accepted or believed has yet to be seen. In the meantime, the British media has struggled to find drama in a news story that it does not control, captive to Edward Snowden and The Guardian.

Ironically, the Woolwich attack occurred at roughly the same time as Snowden made his final preparations and headed to Hong Kong; it would be unfortunate for The Guardian if its latest coup was undermined by an act Prism was designed to prevent. With this in mind, the world and viewing public awaits the next installment.

First published in the Buenos Aires Herald on June 14, 2013