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