06.03.2015 Views

Studies in Intelligence - The Black Vault

Studies in Intelligence - The Black Vault

Studies in Intelligence - The Black Vault

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Book Review: Sp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Intelligence</strong><br />

Some media observers—m<strong>in</strong>dful of well-publicized discussions between news<br />

organizations and the US government prior to publication of blockbuster stories<br />

on the Terrorist Surveillance Program, SWIFT, and CIA “secret prisons”—are<br />

under the impression that journalists’ deal<strong>in</strong>gs with government have always<br />

been adversarial and contentious. For them, Sp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Intelligence</strong> will offer evidence<br />

to the contrary. Illustrative of the “occasionally supportive” relationship<br />

cited by Dover and Goodman is an article by British journalist Chapman P<strong>in</strong>cher<br />

who, well <strong>in</strong>to his n<strong>in</strong>eties, reflects on a lifetime of report<strong>in</strong>g on <strong>in</strong>telligence and<br />

national security matters.<br />

P<strong>in</strong>cher says his receipt and publication of such a steady stream of classified<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation over the years precipitated the “most cherished professional compliment”<br />

he ever received, made <strong>in</strong> Parliament—that he was a “public ur<strong>in</strong>al where<br />

M<strong>in</strong>isters and officials queued up to leak.” But it was a two-way street, he<br />

recounts. Specifically, P<strong>in</strong>cher makes reference to a contrived front-page story he<br />

wrote, <strong>in</strong> collaboration with the UK government, concern<strong>in</strong>g Brita<strong>in</strong>’s first H-<br />

bomb tests off Malden Island <strong>in</strong> the Pacific Ocean <strong>in</strong> 1957. P<strong>in</strong>cher relates that<br />

Japanese, concerned about radioactive fall-out, were plann<strong>in</strong>g to make the tests<br />

impossible by sail<strong>in</strong>g a thousand small ships <strong>in</strong>to the area. If they forced the<br />

tests to be abandoned, Brita<strong>in</strong>’s entire defense policy would be ru<strong>in</strong>ed, P<strong>in</strong>cher<br />

says he was told.<br />

British officials solicited P<strong>in</strong>cher’s help <strong>in</strong> try<strong>in</strong>g to fool the Japanese with a<br />

deception operation, and he complied. He reported that the tests, which were<br />

scheduled for May, had been delayed a month “due to technical problems with the<br />

bomb.” <strong>The</strong> Daily Express published P<strong>in</strong>cher’s front-page story and it was picked<br />

up by other media, but the tests went ahead <strong>in</strong> May 1957 as scheduled, with no<br />

protest fleet approach<strong>in</strong>g Malden. In this <strong>in</strong>stance, P<strong>in</strong>cher cooperated with the<br />

government, publish<strong>in</strong>g someth<strong>in</strong>g he knew was false. It clearly was a different<br />

era, and a different m<strong>in</strong>d-set. P<strong>in</strong>cher’s article isn’t the only one that po<strong>in</strong>ts to<br />

how government and the media have collaborated. In a piece subtitled, “A Snapshot<br />

of a Happy Marriage,” Goodman details the longstand<strong>in</strong>g, mutually beneficial<br />

relationship between British <strong>in</strong>telligence and the BBC.<br />

<strong>The</strong> most <strong>in</strong>sightful essay <strong>in</strong> Sp<strong>in</strong>n<strong>in</strong>g <strong>Intelligence</strong>—notwithstand<strong>in</strong>g its references<br />

to former DNI Mike McConnell as “Director of Central <strong>Intelligence</strong>”—was<br />

written by Sir David Omand, former director of the Government Communications<br />

Headquarters (GCHQ) and the UK’s first security and <strong>in</strong>telligence coord<strong>in</strong>ator.<br />

In the piece, “<strong>Intelligence</strong> Secrets and Media Spotlights,” Omand po<strong>in</strong>ts<br />

out that journalists and “spies” have more <strong>in</strong> common than they might care to<br />

admit—both seek to uncover what is hidden, both work under tight deadl<strong>in</strong>es,<br />

and both have sources they protect assiduously.<br />

Not<strong>in</strong>g that the worlds of secret <strong>in</strong>telligence and journalism “have been forced<br />

to <strong>in</strong>teract but never without stra<strong>in</strong>,” he cites numerous reasons for the <strong>in</strong>evitable<br />

tension between the two professions. He correctly po<strong>in</strong>ts out that “prurient<br />

curiosity” still sells newspapers and, as both <strong>in</strong>telligence professionals who deal<br />

with the media and reporters who cover <strong>in</strong>telligence issues can confirm, the word<br />

“secret” acts as an “accelerant” on a break<strong>in</strong>g news story. That’s as true <strong>in</strong> the<br />

United States as it is <strong>in</strong> Brita<strong>in</strong>.<br />

40 <strong>Studies</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>Intelligence</strong> Vol. 54, No. 1 (Extracts, March 2010)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!