The London Blasts: Media Review

DAY 13: Wednesday 20 July 2005

The JTAC Report: British Intelligence Links Iraq To Terror

Summary

Incidentally

Success

Crisis or Holiday?

The JTAC Report

The Intelligence Warning - Guardian Bland, FT and Telegraph Better

Action: Letter Of Correction Needed

How To Bury A Story - The Times

How To Erase A Story - The Independent

Brainwashing Under Freedom

Conclusions

SUMMARY

After the Guardian poll yesterday (the public think there's a link with Iraq), the Chatham House report the day before (the Establishment thinks there's a link with Iraq), and the Young Muslims and Extremism report (the Home Office and the Foreign Office think there's a link with Iraq), now we know from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre report (below) that British intelligence think there's a link with Iraq.

INCIDENTALLY

SUCCESS!

Finally, after days of pressure, and ten days after it was first leaked to the Sunday Times, the Guardian has reported the British Government's crucial Young Muslims and Extremism report:

'A link between the government's foreign policy and disillusion among young Muslims - strenuously denied by ministers - was also made in a paper prepared for Tony Blair on the orders of the home and foreign secretaries last year.

'The paper, Young Muslims and Extremism, which included input from the security services, said British foreign policy "seems a particularly strong cause of disillusionment amongst Muslims, including young Muslims".

'It referred to "a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments ... in particular Britain and the US".

'The paper describes "perceived western bias in Israel's favour" as a long-running grievance. It adds: "This perception seems to have become more acute post 9/11. The perception is that passive 'oppression', as demonstrated by British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to 'active oppression'." The war on terror, Iraq and Afghanistan were all seen by a section of British Muslims as being acts against Islam.

' "This disillusionment may contribute to a sense of helplessness with regard to the situation of Muslims in the world, with a lack of any tangible 'pressure valves', in order to vent frustrations, anger or dissent," said the paper.'

Okay, it was on page 8 and the report was not mentioned in the editorial or the Jonathan Freedland column on this topic, but at least it was there. Pressure from various quarters, including the JNV 'Pressurising the Media' project, has had some effect.

We can make a difference!

CRISIS OR HOLIDAY?

Kevin Maguire, columnist in the Daily Mirror, asks a pointed question:

'Home-grown suicide bombers pose a terrible new threat after killing 50-plus people in the bloodiest strike against Britain since the days of Hitler.

Defiant Premier Tony Blair vows to hunt down the hate-filled terrorists and defeat the perverted logic of Islamic extremists hellbent on destroying our way of life.

Bullish Home Secretary Charles Clarke secures Tory and Liberal Democrat backing for tough new laws to fight Osama bin Laden's merciless disciples.

Bellicose Defence Secretary John Reid talks of an apocalyptic "international battle of enormous proportions" with al-Qaeda.

Determined Chancellor Gordon Brown promises fresh measures to choke off the flow of funds that bankroll the men of evil.

Forceful Foreign Secretary Jack Straw demands no more excuses for those who pervert religion to justify the massacre of innocents.

So can anyone explain to me why MPs will pack their bags tomorrow and pop off for a summer holiday lasting 11 long weeks?'

THE JTAC REPORT

THE INTELLIGENCE WARNING - GUARDIAN BLAND, FT AND TELEGRAPH BETTER

Back to business. Another day, another damaging report. Today it is an intelligence report by the British government's 'Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre' (JTAC) from June, just weeks before the bombings in London. JTAC compiles intelligence from MI5, MI6, GCHQ (phone tapping, etc), Scotland Yard Anti-terrorism Branch, the Foreign Office, and others. The report, which would have been circulated to some foreign intelligence services, was first leaked to the New York Times yesterday:

'The tersely worded threat assessment was particularly surprising because it stated that terrorist-related activity in Britain was a direct result of violence in Iraq.'

' "Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K.," said the report, a copy of which was made available by a foreign intelligence service and was not disputed by four senior British officials who were asked about it.'

The Guardian has a straight report without comment on page 8 (this story includes the 'Young Muslims and Extremism' quotes mentioned above), entitled, 'Ministers warned of Iraq link to UK terror'. The Telegraph has in some ways a better story (mentioning the Guardian poll and the Chatham House report) on page 4 - and trails the story in the third paragraph of its main front page story. There's no mention of the JTAC report on the Guardian front page (which leads yet again on an effectively anti-Muslim story which focuses on the 'threat from British Muslims').

The bland nature of the Guardian coverage of the JTAC report is in contrast to the Financial Times, which comments, 'Intelligence report forces Blair on to defensive':

'Tony Blair was forced on to the defensive over the London bomb attacks for the first time on Tuesday after a leaked British intelligence report bolstered claims that the Iraq war had increased the terrorist threat.'

In fact, Tony Blair has been on the defensive for some time now (a topic we hope to examine shortly), but this is the first time that the media and the Westminster system recognise his difficulties. (The Telegraph also said Mr Blair was now on the defensive - and it said it in its front page trail for the JTAC report.)

ACTION: LETTER OF CORRECTION NEEDED

The FT report rightly brings in the earlier intelligence warnings, but gets things slightly wrong:

'It emerged during the Hutton inquiry that the prime minister had been warned by the intelligence services in the run-up to the Iraq war that the fall of Saddam Hussein could increase the terrorist threat.

'But the leaked JTAC report is the first official postwar confirmation of a link with the Iraq war and terrorist activity in Britain.'

As keen readers of the JNV Media Review will know, the 10 February JIC warning did not emerge during the Hutton inquiry, but in the report of the Intelligence and Security Committee. (See the final entry in our first London Blasts Media review.) Furthermore, the JTAC report (June 2005) is not the first official postwar confirmation of a link between the war in Iraq and terrorism in the UK. That honour, as we all know by now, goes to the Young Muslims and Extremism report (May 2004).

An unmissable opportunity to get a letter of correction and reinforcement into the FT! (Please see our letter-writing page for the email address and tips.)

HOW TO BURY A STORY - THE TIMES

The Times gave us a lesson in how to bury a story. Yes, there is a paragraph on the key finding of the JTAC report:

The JTAC report also contradicted the Government’s political stance, repeated vociferously this week, that the events in Iraq had no bearing on the terrorist attacks in Britain. “Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK,” it said.

How to make sure this does not actually register in the public mind, even though it's on page 2? First, bury this paragraph in a story about something completely different - ''Top' al-Qaeda figure held over London attacks'.

This shows that the JTAC report as a whole is not important, and should be ignored.

Secondly, sandwich this paragaph in a separate thread:

'The leaking of the JTAC conclusion to The New York Times placed the Government and its intelligence advisers in an embarrassing position. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has already said in public that the decision to lower the terrorist threat alert was wrong.'

'The JTAC report also contradicted the Government’s political stance, repeated vociferously this week, that the events in Iraq had no bearing on the terrorist attacks in Britain. “Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK,” it said.'

'Security sources said that the threat analysis was based on the available intelligence at the time. “This was an intelligence gap, not an intelligence failure,” one source said.'

See how the third paragraph here runs on from the first, as though the crucial paragraph doesn't even exist?

This shows which section of the (unimportant) JTAC report is worth talking about, and which section should be ignored even more energetically.

Thirdly, make no other reference to the unwelcome facts, either in the story, or in any commentary.

This shows that the whole thing never really happened, and sensible people don't even mention it. It isn't worth talking about.

Isn't the free press wonderful? (See here for relevant remarks by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman.)

HOW TO ERASE A STORY - THE INDEPENDENT

The Independent goes one better than The Times, by once again not carrying a crucial story in its paper edition (at least the one JNV gets), but posting a story online. The online story does the same 'one-paragraph-sandwiched-in-another-thread' trick.

The 16 words reporting the link with Iraq came in paragraph 11 - in a 16 paragraph story. 16 words in a 705 word story, which was only available online.

There's also no reference to the JTAC report in Patrick Cockburn's piece 'The true, terrible state of Iraq and the London link' (page 29 or paid-for access here). This is no discredit to Patrick Cockburn himself, who is based in Baghdad - it's a powerful and important article - but it says something about the editors back in London who did not feed him something about JTAC to incorporate into what he was saying on this precise theme.

How to erase a story, in an avowedly 'anti-war' newspaper.

BRAINWASHING UNDER FREEDOM

It is quite normal functioning for the right-wing press to be more honest about what is going on in the world than the liberal-left press, which often plays a stronger role in enforcing the boundaries of the thinkable. (Chomsky has written about this often.) The audiences for the FT and the Telegraph are 'safe' and can be trusted with explosive material. The kind of people who read the Guardian and the Independent, on the other hand, might be mobilized to oppose, and therefore should not be given access to too much incendiary material.

This is not to say there is any explicit collaboration between different media outlets, or any direction from the state, or even internal policy documents within any of these papers' newsrooms. The right result occurs by the selection of right-thinking people, and 'on the job learning' of 'news values', until they are internalised and rendered invisible to the properly-functioning journalist.

This is also not to say that this result is inevitable. The media system has limits, but we are nowhere near them at present. Pressure can extend the boundaries of what can be expressed, as we see with the Guardian report today, and as we see in a longer historical perspective when we compare reporting today with reporting during the era of the Vietnam War.

See Chomsky's site for classic analysis on this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

After the Guardian poll yesterday (the public think there's a link with Iraq), the Chatham House report the day before (the Establishment thinks there's a link with Iraq), and the Young Muslims and Extremism report (the Home Office and the Foreign Office think there's a link with Iraq), now we know from the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre report that British intelligence think there's a link with Iraq.

There are now enormous opportunities for us to educate through the media, through criticising and correcting/complimenting and reinforcing all these papers and other national media, and our local media as well. Please see our letter-writing page for email addresses and tips. We can get self-censored material into the Guardian, and letters into The Times, there is scope for more success. We can educate and lobby our political representatives, and religious and labour movement leaders.

JNV welcomes feedback.