froomkinfan

Army case leaks to Daily Mail but stays secret

2009-06-29T10:48:00.000-07:00

The Mail has repeated a story from the Sunday Mirror.

Where could the leak come from? Is it possible the army would want these views to be known? A report exists but will not be published. Apparently it has been decided that all documents will remain secret.

What is strange is that this follows the discussion on how secret the hearings should be. So nothing is final.

OhmyNews story now published

2009-06-22T11:28:00.000-07:00

Links here

Includes a brief section on the Al Jazeera memo. why was there a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act in this case but no move on the publication of the Manning memo. Would this change if UK media showed a bit more interest?

Manning Memo story for OhmyNews

2009-06-22T02:09:00.000-07:00

I have sent in a story for OhmyNews, not yet published as of Monday morning. i hope it will be edited ahead of the Wednesday debate in UK parliament.

My claim at a news angle is that the Observer has published the story. A memo of a conversation including Bush and Blair seems to show that the facts were shifted to fit a decision already made to start a war. This is what many people think already but not the sort of thing within the scope of the enquiry recently announced by Brown.

So far a Google search finds only a blog as a follow up from Sunday print publication. David Swanson is kind enough to say that this is another sign of the UK being a few steps ahead of on news. However, according to the Wikipedia the New York Times reported this memo in 2006. So the publication in one UK newspaper three years later is not exactly rushing things.

Very Bad News

2009-06-19T08:06:00.000-07:00

Apologies for not updating this for a while. It is never good to relax or so it seems.

The Froomkin blog is about to be terminated. Too many people like me assuming that all is not too disturbing.

Hope something else happens.

Nothing against the current President, but should all critique just come to an end on trust? Confidence levels in the official White house journalists? Well what do you think?

Exceptionalism

2008-10-05T05:27:00.000-07:00

The BBC seems to have reduced reporting on remarks by Sarah Palin, but I found the Youtube/ AP clip so now know about the "exceptionalism" claims.

Recent discussion in the guardian as printed in the UK has covered whether people outside the USA should be commenting on the election. See Jonathan Freedland for example.

What strikes me most is that the discussion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is still fairly limited in the UK. This is something to come back to.

But meanwhile, this "exceptionalism" is something to think about.

More on the Official Secrets Act

2008-02-08T10:00:00.001-08:00

Here is an explanation of why the Al Jazeera case was a success for the prosecution.

The only real difference was that in the case of Keogh and O'Connor the officials who wanted the prosecution were prepared to testify, as was the prime minister's foreign policy advisor. With Pasquill, the embarrassment and vindictive nature of the trial was simply too much.

Also the Foreign Secretary, then Margaret Beckett, was prepared to sign statements about national security.

septicisle also points out that

It's also not the only trial upcoming under the OSA: Thomas Lund-Lack, who leaked a Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre report to the Sunday Times is also facing similar charges. The line between where investigative journalism and the public interest ends and justified government secrecy lies is an incredibly fine one, and it's not going to be decided through cases like this but through a review of the OSA itself, something that is long overdue.

JURIST not bound by UK law

2008-01-10T02:21:00.000-08:00

The JURIST, based at a USA university, is not afraid or reporting that may not be exactly welcome in the White House

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/01/uk-civil-servant-cleared-in-rendition.php

However UK reports of the recent case fail to mention Al Jazeera.

Maybe I have this wrong. Was there a court hearing about the original ruling or what? Either way I can't find any UK reporting linking to the Daily Mirror story.

Somehow the UK Foreign Office is more concerned not to be critical of Bush than people in the USA.

New topic on Guardian Talk

2007-11-30T02:51:00.000-08:00

The Guardian has deleted my original topic on Al Jazeera. It is true that not much happened. No new posts for a while. I guess this is part of the general effect of Blair not being around so much. Brown is not as obvious in his support of Bush, but the war continues.

I have started a new topic and also commented on a recent opinion from Polly Toynbee

You should read the Polly Toynbee text first but I am not sure about copying it. My comment below

It is still striking for me that Polly Toynbee rarely mentions the Iraq war and the public opposition to the original decision and the feeling of distrust around presentation and reporting.

I have started a topic over on Talk - Politics - Westminster etc

A previous topic, now deleted. was on the Al Jazeera memo trial.

Just in case someone missed the reports,

The Daily Mirror reported that there may be a memo about a possible talk between Bush and Blair about Al Jazeera.

Two people were tried under the Official Secrets Act. Much of the trial was held in secret. Peter Kilfoyle MP was not prosecuted although he made various statements based on the alleged contents of the memo.

Legal restrictions limit the extent to which UK media can report the trial and use the words "Al Jazeera" in the same story.

David Blunkett told Channel 4 when promoting his biography that the UK cabinet did discuss "taking out" Al Jazeera. As far as I know no UK media have tried to follow this up with further questions.

In case you think I am off topic, the generals do have a case. There are two very expensive wars happening. The people who still join the Labour Party may have expected Harriet Harman to say something about Iraq after the election. Did I miss it?

How did these wars start?
How was the case for them presented?
How was it reported?

Trust in politics? Just ignoring Iraq is not going to get anywhere.

Harriet and the High Street

2007-10-30T04:29:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I posted anything on this blog. Somehow there has been an impression in the UK that because Tony Blair is not around so much, maybe things have changed. On Sunday there was a TV interview with Harriet Harman, the recently elected Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. Now I may be only slightly awake on a Sunday morning, even between 9 and 10, but I don't think there was any question or answer about the war in Iraq.

This is strange. As memory serves during the election Harriet Harman had a view on Iraq widely understood to be slightly different to the government position. Why would Andrew Marr not ask about this? OK the BBC was done over by the Hutton Report etc. but the occasional question about Iraq would not be too provocative.

I have found the relevant blog and put in a comment-

"And one former member who was on her way to the hairdresser, who left over the war in Iraq and is thinking of re-joining."

I am not sure why. I used to be a member of the Labour Party but have voted Liberal Democrat since 2003. Doing a search on "Iraq" finds not much on this blog since the election for Deputy Leader. There was no mention of Iraq as far as I know during th einterview on Sunday with Andrew Marr.

So is the idea that maybe the issue will just go away? There are still US troops in an active situation. What is the current UK policy about this? Part of the downside in the lack of debate around the choice of Gordon Brown as leader is that there is no depth of understanding on several policy issues. Iraq could turn out to be one of them.

Currently awaiting moderation.

Meanwhile in the USA, Congress is more or less sensible. The UK Labour Party is so timid nowadays that it may take a change in the US President before there is any further debate on Iraq.

And Dan Froomkin continues to be a much more effective source of questioning than the drift in UK media.

Today's Guardian features an article by people from Compass-

Brown has already defused many of the political landmines: rejuvenating the Commons, attacking the royal prerogative, apparently stepping away from the failed policy of marketisation of public services and starting to end the combat role of British troops in Iraq.

So no further discussion required then.

Polly Toynbee finds time for Lib Dems

2007-08-21T04:56:00.000-07:00

I have put this comment onto Comment is Free

Previously Polly Toynbee has been a supporter of voting Labour on all occasions. She may have information or think she has information that Brown has a different policy on Iraq to the policy he has supported since 1997. Who knows really?

Comment on Comment is Free now stops after three days so the punters get no chance to develop an argument. No response so far from Polly Toynbee. My impression is that most comments are against her on the Labour association.

Just one example of the difficulty for print journalism in adjusting to online discussion. My impression is that the columnists did not ask to become bloggers. They rarely respond to comments.

Jeff Jarvis sometimes adds something, but more often on Buzzmachine.

============================
My Comment

One reason the protest at the Iraq invasion has stopped is the success of Labour and media in blocking discussion. The opposition inside the Labour Party has not been reported.

Polly Toynbee has been part of this. She wrote during the last local elections about those who had decided not to vote Labour as not really knowing why. Iraq got a very small place in the story.

Apparently there is now less of a legal block on reporting the Al Jazeera memo trial. But there is almost nothing said about it. David Blunkett appeared to state to Channel 4 when promoting his book that bombing Al Jazeera was discussed with Tony Blair. Has any UK journalist asked him about this?

I have voted Liberal Democrat since 2003 and written to the Labour Party on each occasion to explain why. I did get a reply after the European elections but not since. The approach seems to be to make out that such a voting pattern has ceased to exist. This has been supported by some journalists and this seems to have been effective. Is it surprising there is less involvement in UK politics?

I now blog occasionally as a fan for Froomkin. US politics is now more inspiring. The Democrats are often sensible.

==================

added this bit as i will continue mostly on this blog

Appeal Court story now published

2007-07-13T02:12:00.001-07:00

OhmyNews have now published story on Appeal Court hearing.

Story for OhmyNews on UK media appeal

2007-07-12T11:33:00.000-07:00

I have sent in a story for OhmyNews about the UK appeal on the Official Secrets trial. Not yet edited but here is a link to a Google doc.

The Press Gazette extract, block quote towards the end, explains that UK journalists had to guess what might have been heard in secret in case they published something similar from another source, for example the Daily Mirror. Am I making this up? Don't think so. Have a look yourself.

This blog is not published in the UK, but far out in Google land.

I also included a repeat of Dan Froomkin remarks from long ago. Not sure what the USA interest is in press freedom issues. So far there has not been any USA reporting picked up by Google News on this Appeals Court hearing, as far as I can find.

Polarization

2007-05-24T10:02:00.000-07:00

Dan Froomkin reports on White House comments on Jimmy Carter's remarks about Bush and Blair. The "polarization" is not about "anti-Americanism" as clearly Jimmy carter is an American. What he said about Blair was on the BBC Radio 4 program Today and I found it wonderful to hear. Most UK Labour politicians seem to have decided not to comment on Blair so long as he is certain to go. Democrat opinion in the UK is very welcome in my opinion.

Appeal is started

2007-05-24T09:46:00.000-07:00

According the the Guardian blog, the appeal has started about the gagging order on reporting the trial.

Richard Norton-Taylor points out that

We cannot even report - or link to - what Larry Miller, said about the trial and the document in his Letter from London for the American channel and website, CBS.

The link is HERE

As mentioned previously, this blog is not in the UK so much as hosted by Google in a secure space somewhere.

Larry Miller writes

While the jail sentences are relatively short, the two men have no careers to come back to. But at least they will be alive, unlike scientist, weapons inspector and civil servant David Kelly, who killed himself after telling a reporter the Blair government had "sexed up" the dossier that led to the war in Iraq.

Incidentally, the government has just been told that under the Freedom of Information Act, it needs to disclose an early draft of this dossier to show if the claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes was inserted at the last minute to "sex it up." The government can, of course, choose not to disclose it.

So the David Kelly story is cropping up again. The Iraq war was launched and sustained with exetreme measures of news management. Dissent has been controlled so far to some extent but there are objections surfacing in different ways.

I still don't understand why the UK authorities claim the security issue is about avoiding embaressment for UK diplomatic allies when US media such as CBS seem quite ok about reporting the story.

OhmyNews publish story on John McDonnell

2007-05-18T07:13:00.000-07:00

OhmyNews have published my story on John McDonnell.

I stick mostly to facts and quotes with sources but put in a bit of opinion towards the end.

I think this is where I really value OhmyNews and the idea of citizen journalism. I could write a letter to the Labour Party but they seem to be determined not to talk about the opposition to Iraq policy. I sent several emails explaining why I now vote Liberal Democrat but recently there have been no replies.

Froomkin on Al Jazeera trial

2007-05-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

I have found a link, but only to the start of the trial.

Dan Froomkin wrote-

But as I wrote in my December 2, 2005 column, the White House has never provided a straight answer to this question: Did President Bush raise the idea of bombing the headquarters of the al-Jazeera television network with Blair that day -- and if so, was he serious or was he joking?

Is it possible Tony blair will complete his visit ot Washington without any questions on this?

A very strange speculation

2007-05-16T03:28:00.000-07:00

The New Statesman is a proper print publication. Not a stream of wild imaginings from a chat room. They do have a blog however.

Martin Bright writes

I have heard an interesting suggestion that when questions were first asked about this event, UK government officials were planning an outright denial. How could they possibly pull this off? Because apparently Bush discussed using a missile, so it wasn't strictly speaking a bomb he intended to use.

Strange or what? I think this is maybe meant to suggest to the legal authorities that preventing reporting of what was said in court can only result in speculation. Given the remarks to Channel 4 by David Blunkett there is reason to suppose that "taking out" (the phrase used by Blunkett) Al Jazeera was discussed at some point.

New Statesman is on the case

2007-05-14T06:35:00.000-07:00

A blog indicates that the New Statesman, esteemed print periodical, is now making a case for journalism.

Martin Bright writes

The trial of civil servant David Keogh and parliamentary researcher Leo O'Connor for breaching the Official Secrets Act has gone largely unnoticed.

This is partly because the pair decided -- wrongly in my opinion -- not to allow a campaign to gather around their case. But it has also been difficult for journalists to report the case because of the draconian reporting restrictions that surround it

.

So maybe the print journalists will be making a stand around the appeal on reporting the trial.

He is a bit circumspect about the web

The judge in the case, Mr Justice Aikens, made no reference to the internet. But we have to be careful here. All I can say is that I would always encourage readers of this blog to read all the postings.

I think a check on Google News would show that the case has not gone "largely unnoticed" online. Is he suggesting a general search or just on posts for the New Statesman?

Could he mean this one?

Blog searching

2007-05-13T06:34:00.000-07:00

Thinking about newspapers this morning. Andrew Marr bases his TV show on the Sunday newspapers, see my blog about reading the Guardian.

Could it be possible to do a TV show based on blogs? Maybe this is the future for Youtube. Meanwhile I stick mostly to text.

Just as a test, here are a few from searching on Keogh, Kilfoyle and Iraq.

Winter Patriot has a long post about the gagging order on the Al Jazeera trial. Very comprehensive and of interest to any journalist.

Unbossed.com has a quote from the Washington Post report in 2005

A former senior U.S. intelligence official said that it was clear the White House saw al-Jazeera as a problem, but that although the CIA's clandestine service came up with plans to counteract it, such as planting people on its staff, it never received permission to proceed. "Bombing in Qatar was never contemplated," the former official said.

Comment from Unbossed

The fact that the CIA was exploring options to infiltrate Al-Jazeera shows how obsessed the WH was with the network. The plan has a Nixonian ring to it. The former official here sounds a lot like Colin Powell, so you need to take the assertion that bombing Qatar "was never contemplated" with an especially large grain of salt.

The trial has established that Colin Powell was at the meeting but so far as I know he has not been asked recently what he remembers about it.

Although there is reporting online, newspapers are still not reporting the trial to any great extent. One comment at Unbossed remarks -

I haven't seen much else so far in the US news media about this trial, so it wouldn't suprise me if journalists here ignore it almost entirely.

That's a pretty sad commentary on the state of journalism in America.

On the Andrew Marr BBC prog Gordon Brown spoke about Labour government mistakes during the last ten years and made no mention of Iraq. The 75p pension rise and the millenium dome were admitted. Follow up questions anyone?

Guardian editorial shows signs of engagement

2007-05-12T04:04:00.000-07:00

Things may be moving a bit in terms of the Guardian taking a line on editorial.

There is a leader today about the gagging order as they see it. Also a story by Richard Norton-Taylor about Peter Kilfoyle's intention to raise questions in the House of Commons. I am still confused as to what is allowed to be reported. The fact that the Crown Prosecution Service considered prosecuting Peter Kilfoyle and then decided not to is not included in current reports. Maybe Liverpool media are not seen as significant sources by journalists in London. Sorry I take that back. They are getting there, however slowly.

This blog by the way comes from somewhere out in Google land, nowhere near the UK. For security reasons the exact location of the Google servers is never revealed. Google News is another service not based in the UK for purposes of not joining up the dots.

Craig Murray makes an interesting point about the web.

"Finally, what a terrible shame that the would-be leakers decided to try to use the newspapers rather than the Net. Our pusillanimous newspapers are still controllable by the courts. Despite Norton Taylor's huffing and puffing, the Guardian will obey Justice Aikens (did I mention he is a wanker) ? The Net, however, is unstoppable. The documents we leaked are on hundreds of sites all over the World."

Another point to ponder-

"One worrying aspect of this case is that the jury convicted. There has been a historic reluctance of juries to convict in OSA cases, because they tend to sympathise with the defendants and not with the draconian legislation. This conviction might encourage the government to make more OSA prosecutions. It did not dare prosecute me, even though I very openly released many classified documents related to our policy of using intelligence from torture. There remains, of course, the stinking fact that "Top Secret" intelligence is regularly leaked by the ministers and special advisers in the Home Office to the media whenever they wish to start a new terror scare."

The lack of public concern in this recent case follows the success of the government in preventing full reporting. At the time of the Daily mirror reports concern was expressed by Boris Johnson and Chris Hitchens and others. Not much recently, but the media have responded to pressure, as far as I can tell.

OhmyNews have published another story on the convictions and the gagging.

This blog is a space to write about my thoughts as a citizen. I try to write for OhmyNews as directly as possible. "AP Style" is suggested as a guide. I include occasional comments but mostly show sources with weblinks and use extensive quotes.

My impression is that Labour have destroyed large chunks of UK civic space for dialogue, including their own membership organisation. It is not just Tony Blair, the whole structure has gone with it. This is only one consequence of the Iraq decisions but is important for people in the UK. Without giving sources now, it seems to me that the "intelligence" was over presented and that some people working in "intelligence" leaked to that effect to protect their own reputation. So far only the BBC has been damaged but other structures are accidents waiting to happen.

There seems to be a new trend of briefing, see New Zealand Herald

Loyal Blairites launched a campaign to pin the blame for the mistakes made after the conflict on the Bush administration, which rejected Britain's advice by abolishing the Iraqi army after Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Alastair Campbell, the former Downing Street communications director, and Baroness Morgan of Huyton, the former director of government relations, both criticised Donald Rumsfeld, the former US defence secretary, for the post-war decisions.

Will this be based on evidence if it continues? Is it ok for Baroness Morgan to leak or is she just expressing an opinion?

And what happened to the idea of not embarrassing George Bush or the USA?

As reported a while ago in the Guardian

Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, hinted that embarrassment was the real issue at stake when she signed a certificate for the court last year. She claimed the disclosure of the document would have a "serious negative impact" on UK-US diplomatic relations. "The ultimate consequence", she claimed, "would be a substantial risk of harm to national security."

The recent statements by sources close to Tony Blair are not going to help much with US-UK diplomatic relations-

Labour officials in Downing Street said Blair had most influence over Bush when they were together, one-to-one. One says: "That is why he went over [to Washington] so much. The weekly video conference was no substitute, partly because there were so many people listening on either side. But Bush was straight to deal with and did not play games, but it was up to him to make the right decisions. In the end he didn't."

the same article by Patrick Wintour includes a quote from Sir Jeremy Greenstock on disagreements about policy-

According to Greenstock, "perhaps the Brits should have spoken up more loudly with our former colonial experience, because we learned to make law and order the number one priority when we have a situation to mend."

So the UK is an experienced colonial power. Policy has been correct all along. Except that the USA has not implemented it properly. That seems to be the Blair line. Not in a soundbite, but a series of leaks.

Maybe US print journalists will ask some questions during his next visit.

Report on Peter Kilfoyle MP in OhmyNews

2007-05-08T04:19:00.000-07:00

Copied from Guardian Talk

OhmyNews have published my report on Peter Kilfoyle

Still nothing in the London based papers I can find on Google News except a small mention in the Independent.

MP says decision not to prosecute him was political. Meanwhile trial continues on related charges. Is there a story here? Was there once a time when journalists looked at the Official Secrets Act in detail?

No Prosecution for Peter Kilfoyle MP

2007-05-06T09:02:00.000-07:00

Peter Kilfoyle MP has been told by the special prosecution unit of the Metropolitan Police that no further action will be taken following an interview under caution last year about the leak of a memo said to be a summary of President Bush’s meeting with Tony Blair in April 2004.

In a letter, DC Jasper Bartlett said: “I am writing to you regarding the police investigation into the leak of a classified government document, for which you were interviewed under caution.

“The Crown Prosecution Service has advised me that no further action shall be taken with regards to this investigation due to insufficient evidence.”

Kilfoyle told the Liverpool Post “I think the case has been dropped for political reasons, because they did not want me to discuss the memo in open court.

“They knew that’s what I would do, even if it breached the Official Secrets Act, because I wanted to ensure the information got out. Thousands of people died at Falluja, which must be considered a war crime, and there has been a cover-up of what happened there.”

Rob Merrick's report for the Liverpool Post includes some background, suggesting that the memo records that Tony Blair "apparently argued against missile strikes on Al-Jazeera’s Qatar headquarters." "The two leaders also discussed the American assault on the Iraqi city of Falluja, in which up to 1,000 civilians are feared to have died. Pictures were shown on al-Jazeera, infuriating US generals."

In a related story, the trial continues of civil servant David Keogh and political researcher Leo O'Connor, charged under the Official Secrets Act. The BBC has reported that prosecuting QC David Perry has told the jury that issues around Iraq are not relevant to decisions about guilt.

"For all I know you may be opposed to the government's view or you may support it wholeheartedly or you may be neutral. It does not matter.

"Similarly you may approve or disapprove of what the United States does.

"The real point is that there are British troops in Iraq risking their lives on a daily basis and trying to install order and calm."

Mr Perry said the publication of the memo would have posed a significant risk of making the situation in Iraq worse and British soldiers would have "borne the brunt of it".

In earlier evidence Keogh said he had "very strong feelings" when he first read the document. as reported by Richard Norton-Taylor in the Guardian, "when he started to explain why, the trial judge, Mr Justice Aikens, imposed a contempt order preventing journalists from reporting Mr Keogh's remarks to the jury."

Mr Keogh told the jury the consequences of disclosure of the document would be "purely embarrassment" and would not pose a significant risk to any British individual, civilian or in uniform.

Response to YouTube interview with Blair on Iraq

2007-04-30T02:45:00.000-07:00

This blog makes a slight change of direction with more on my own views about the UK. As mentioned previously, in the USA there is now more agreement in opposition to the war. The Democrats have a fairly coherent view. Dan Froomkin is less isolated than previously.

In the UK we still have a Labour Party sticking to the idea that Bush and Blair were right all along, except for the not WMD turning up, and that there is no issue about Iraq in any local elections. I find this annoying, as I used to vote Labour and have tried to communicate during local and European elections why I have voted for the Liberal Democrats since 2003.

The Labour Party now has a YouTube channel. When it started they claimed it would allow for direct communication without the "media" who are alleged to be the source of questions about Iraq etc. There were many comments about Iraq anyway and there is still no video from the Foreign Secretary. Maybe this will change after the elections later this week.

The format has broken new ground for YouTube so that Tony Blair answers a selection of questions put by an interviewer. Not quite back to a TV format as John O'Farell is a former Labour candidate and is clearly sympathetic.

He did ask about Iraq though. There could have been further questions. If the war was started for regime change, why was this not stated at the time? What was the legal advice? Why was a second UN resolution asked for at one stage? What was the scope of the enquiries Blair refers to? Why did the Scottish Nationalists put a motion for an enquiry into when the UK made it clear to Bush that a war would be supported?

My own question about the current Al Jazeera leak trial was not mentioned. No surprise there. But this illustartes what seems to me an unfortunate consequence of the Iraq policy, a weakened civic space in the UK. According to a Daily Mirror report there was a talk about bombing Al Jazeera. David Blunkett has spoken to Channel 4 about "taking out" Al Jazeera. There is very little discussion about this in the UK.
The Associated Press has included the context of the Daily Mirror story in reporting the Official Secrets Act trial but the Times, BBC and Guardian have yet to do so.

The Guardian is just a bit elusive in connecting the Iraq issue and the Labour vote. This is a blog so I don't mind generalising a bit from a selection.

Jackie Ashley, today-

One cabinet minister tells me that a typical conversation has gone: "How are you voting?" "Dunno." "Have you ever voted Labour?" "Oh yes, always." "So what's the problem?" "Dunno."

One more selection, Polly Toynbee last week

Listening to the sounds and the silences on the doorstep is a salutory reminder that politics is not only about policy but also about atmosphere and mood. Ask what exactly Labour has done wrong and few mention the war, some mention immigration but most put their finger on nothing so specific. Ignorance of almost everything can be breathtaking, but the general leakage of trust is a warning that Labour's time could be up.

My guess is that for whatever reason, the war is a much bigger issue that the Labour Party or friendly journalists are making out.

Here is a short extract from a news item in the Daily Record, published in Scotland.

FORGET IRAQ SAYS JACK

JACK McCONNELL last night urged Scots not to let Iraq cloud the issue of how they vote in the Holyrood poll.

But SNP leader Alex Salmond hit back, saying 146 British soldiers had died in Iraq, "the latest one today, many of them Scottish.

"Tony Blair is coming back to Scotland one last time. That's one last opportunity to say to the people, 'I apologise for misleading us into a war in Iraq'."

You know what? Alex Salmond has got a point. I wonder how the Scottish results will be reported in England.

Daily Mirror mentions al Jazeera

2007-04-23T03:26:00.000-07:00

Doing some more searching on Google News it turns out that the Daily Mirror did mention how the memo was first published. There is also mention of a possible conversation about al Jazeera. However so far as I can tell from websites, most UK media have not made the connection with al Jazeera as context for this story.

The trial so far

2007-04-23T02:30:00.000-07:00

OhmyNews has published my story on the trial reporting so far.

Briefly, there is a contrast between Associated Press and BBC/Times on whether or not to mention al Jazeera as anything to do with the case.

The information that Colin Powell was at the meeting could be significant. Christopher Hitchens wrote in Slate about an apparent denial of this. The US Freedom of Information Act might be different for State Department docs.

Looking at Google News it seems there is still not much comment. There was a lot more at the time of the Daily Mirror report. The Associated Press report is widely used, including the word Jazeera in the headline.

Official Secrets, whatever next?

2007-04-12T03:39:00.000-07:00

It is getting more obvious that there is a mismatch between discussion on Iraq in the US and UK. Dan Froomkin continues to report about what appears to me to be a sensible view on the White House. He recently linked to an article by Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks. This claims that few people are interested in a possible new job to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile in the UK there is concern about the permission for serving navy staff to talk to the Sun. The Official Secrets Act was dropped for the occasion but is now back again. Some people think the original incident is worth more discussion. But a background issue seems to be that relatives of servicemen who have died are asking the question why their story is not valued. The army and navy are aware that there is little public support for the wars and continuing doubts about the case made for starting the war in Iraq.

So far as I know there is no recent update on news that Peter Kilfoyle MP may be charged in connection with the leak of the Al Jazeera memo. There could also soon be a trial, mostly held in secret but again there is not any news about this.

Al Jazeera are supporting a BBC discussion about the dangers for journalists working in the Middle East, currently concentrating on a BBC journalist. They are also concerned when bombs drop on their own offices and a journalist is killed. Al Jazeera has asked for more information about the memo and about the remarks by David Blunkett on Channel 4 that appeared to confirm that "taking out" Al Jazeera had been discussed. These are genuine concerns and it would be reasonable for the UK government to offer a response.

For some reason the UK media are not covering these issues at this time. It is possible that the changes in the US scope for discussion will influence the UK before long.

The YouTube context for Labour on Iraq

2007-04-09T09:25:00.000-07:00

Tony Blair has launched a YouTube channel for Labour. I have left a comment on the Official Secrets Act and Peter Kilfoyle but don't expect an answer any time soon.

On Blairwatch, Davide Simonetti claims the numbers are low for most Labour videos, with better results for his own channel recording demonstrations against the Iraq war. I have to say that the Tony Blair intro is doing better from what I can make out. However through a George Galloway sample I found several others. His US Senate evidence gets the highest numbers of all, way off anything on the Labour site. This may change over time, of course.

Galloway is explicit about calling the case for the Iraq war "a pack of lies".

Whatever opposition in the UK comes up with the problem for Labour seems to me to be that most US opinion is now anti war, including many Democrats. This is reflected on YouTube. They may try to continue avoiding Iraq as an issue. Simonetti points out there is nothing on their site so far from the Foreign Secretary.

Selection of video from UK sources

2007-03-27T05:44:00.000-07:00

The previous post followed the suggestion that Iraq is one reason Labour politicians do not want to engage in online video blogging. So this is the result of some recent searches. There may be other links later.

George Galloway on Sky News

Sky is part of the Murdoch structure so this may have to be moved to MySpace.

Ming Campbell

Maybe Ming could have another go at a video on Iraq. Very low number of views on this one. Is there any archive from 2003 that could be mixed in?

Rose Gentle Mother of UK soldier killed in Iraq

The Scottish Nationalists could do well in May, partly because of policy on Iraq.

Peter Kilfoyle

Not about Iraq as such, but the closest a search on Kilfoyle could find.

This is from 18 Doughty Street, arguably the most well known political online video site in the UK. Labour and left political discussion could remain limited till there is a more open discussion on Iraq.

Scope change towards UK video

2007-03-27T05:15:00.000-07:00

I am starting to look at UK online video. This blog has not been updated much, partly because US discussion on Iraq has been less depressing. Not that the opposition to Bush policy has had any effect on what is happening. Just that the media are more or less including something reasonable.

Dan Froomkin continues to do an excellent job. His recent coverage includes the investigation of the US Attorney General including analysis of White House briefings. We have an Attorney General here in the UK. Maybe reporting on him would gain from looking at a US example.

The only criticism of Dan Froomkin i have found is that he is too easily shocked. Brad DeLong may have a low opinion of journalists but i think Froomkin is right to start out with high expectations. The people with access to the White House have the potential to do an excellent job.

Meanwhile there has been a transition to video, at least according to Jeff Jarvis. He has started to include more video links on Buzzmachine and has opened Prezvid to cover the 2008 election through online video. In a column for the Guardian he looked at the UK story so far and I was struck by a comment that the Iraq issue is one factor in discouraging Labour politicians from entering an open conversation as would be necessary in an open video blog.

So the next post will try to find UK video already available.

OhmyNews story published

2007-01-24T01:41:00.000-08:00

The editors have now accepted my story on Davos.

They used the photo on the menu page but not on the article. It is a problem that most of the photos on Flickr are not with a Creative Commons copyright statement. So there is nothing from the event that could be used yet. Not a good sign either for a crossover to the social web or whatever they are talking about. Still, there is plenty of time left.

Photo by Chompers

Story about Davos

2007-01-23T05:03:00.000-08:00

I have done a report for OhmyNews, not edited yet.

Found a photo on Flickr from 2004. There are some found with "davos07" but none with a Creative Commons licence.

Truth and Iran

2007-01-15T03:53:00.000-08:00

Reading Dan Froomkin is good for my mood because he confirms my views are shared by others but the content can be disturbing. I am paying more attention tnbis year so there may be more posts.

The most recent one is a comment on recent Bush claims that the new troops were requested by the Iraq government.

"But Bush's new story lacks a certain important quality: Believability."

Later there is discussion on Iran that suggests a new war is a possibility.

-------

On MSNBC, Chris Matthews and Snow had a contentious exchange. Via Think Progress:

"MATTHEWS: So he will seek congressional approval before any action against Iran?

"SNOW: You are talking about something we are not even discussing.

"MATTHEWS: Yeah, but you are, Tony, because look at this. 'I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region.' Isn't that about Iran?

"SNOW: It, it -- yeah, it is, in part, and what it is is it's saying, look, we are going to make sure that anybody who tries to take aggressive action -- but when Bill Clinton sent a carrier task force into the South China Sea after the North Koreans fired a missile over Japan, that was not as a prelude to war against North Korea. You know how it works.

"MATTHEWS: No, I'm just concerned because, very much in the years, in the months building up to this war in Iraq, we heard a kind of a drumbeat of the dangers from Iraq and the nuclear weaponry and what we're going to do about it, and then gradually we went to war....

"My concern is we're gonna see a ginning up situation whereby we fall in hot pursuit any effort by the Iranians to interfere with Iraq. We take a couple shots at them, they react, then we bomb the hell out of them and hit their nuclear installations without any without any action by Congress. That's the scenario I fear, an extra-constitutional war is what I'm worried about.

"SNOW: Well, you have been watching too many old movies --

--------

Here in the UK we have been watching bits from old World War 2 movies on BBC4. Most of the comments on the show were about how Hollywood gradually forced US actors into British productions and eventually gave the impression that it was the USA that won the war. I think it was John Sergeant who mentioned this actually was the case, but this did not stop the drift of the program. Maybe it was all those films that encouraged Tony Blair to believe in the UK as a global war machine. Have a look at the text of his recent speech. Is he connected with reality? Maybe Dan Froomkin could check this out.

Open discussion in the USA on lies and Iraq

2006-11-09T10:26:00.000-08:00

Dan Froomkin is on the case in describing the implications of recent statements by George Bush.

The UK is way behind in both comment by journalists and statements by Blair or others.

Maybe there will be a pause before the UK leadership works out what the next invention should be.

More sense from Froomkin than we find in the UK

2006-10-26T07:29:00.000-07:00

The recent Bush statements on Iraq have been more or less taken at face value in the UK. No sign of any debate in parliament for example.

Dan Froomkin writes-

"The initial breathless coverage of yesterday morning's press conference in Iraq (see yesterday's column ) eventually gave way to some serious reporting. One thing is clear: The announcement that Iraqi security forces could be largely self-sufficient within 12 to 18 months is not particularly credible."

This is worth repeating.

This sounds credible to me

2006-10-13T03:49:00.000-07:00

Extract from live transcript of a Q&A following recent White House press conference.

------------------
St. Petersburg, Fla.: I hope that Helen Thomas is right when she asserts that the press is now "coming out of its coma," but I have my doubts. The evidence that exposes the incompetence and sheer malevolence of this administration has been available for ages. And who's listening? The real question is if the the American public will awaken from its slumber. Your thoughts?

Dan Froomkin: I think the public was way ahead of the press corps in determining that Bush was not credible. Look at the poll numbers. For instance, a majority of Americans has been saying for more than two years that they think Bush deliberately misled us into war.
-------------------

In the UK the press are not much different in reporting Blair. Checking Google News still shows that only the Guardian reported the Monday hearing that decided the Official Secrets Act trial on the al Jazeera memo will be mostly in secret.

Washington Post reports UK secret court case

2006-10-10T11:08:00.000-07:00

It turns out the Washington Post has a pretty full report on the latest hearing about the al-Jazeera memo and the UK Official Secrets Act.

In the UK only the Guardian has reported in print on the hearing and the decision that parts of the trial will be in secret. The BBC report makes no mention of al-Jazeera.

Maybe the Freedom of Information Act in the US will have more effect than in the UK. The Guardian report includes information that al-Jazeera continues to find out more about the memo.

Will anyone in the US comment on this?

Bush and 'reality'

2006-09-29T11:20:00.000-07:00

Apologies for not posting for a while.

I am getting back to this as a trial is coming up in the UK under the Official Secrets Act about a memo leaked to the Daily Mirror that may be about a discussion on bombing the offices of Al Jazeera. Some of the trial may be in secret. I find it strange that few newspapers sem to be interested. The fact it will be in secret has only been reported in the UK Guardian, as far as I know.

Meanwhile Dan Froomkin is discussing how Bush regards adverse reporting. The Al Jazeera issue is just one example of how the Iraq war has been reported. At least Bush decided to release more of the document recently under discussion. In the UK the culture of secrecy is much more guarded by government. If the memo is published, I think it could be in the US.

About the New York Times

2006-07-03T08:05:00.000-07:00

Froomkin is very direct about his judgement on how the White House operates.

"This column has documented, again and again , that when faced with a potentially damaging political problem, White House strategist Karl Rove's response is not to defend, but to attack.

He links to some depressing news from Peter Wallsten and Maura Reynolds who write in the Los Angeles Times: "The Iraq war is the most immediate foreign policy problem besetting the Bush administration. But as a political issue, the White House and top Republican strategists have concluded that the war is a clear winner.

"GOP officials intend to base the midterm election campaign partly on talking up the war, using speeches and events to contrast President Bush's policies against growing disagreement among leading Democrats over whether to support immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops."

Joined Up Blogs, coming soon

2006-06-29T02:36:00.000-07:00

Later today there should be a guide to other blogs that I work on or at least a diagram as part of my learn9 website. This is about learning so one current idea is to make the blogs at least appear more coherent. I have tended to just start another one and then not continue.

United Nations needs some support sometimes

2006-06-09T08:02:00.000-07:00

The recent remarks about the UN by John Bolton are disturbing for many people around the planet. I am not sure if people in the USA realise how this appears.

I have now found the list of questions that Dan Froomkin has suggested should be asked of someone at the White House. they are based on suggestions from readers-

Uniting the Country

* The nominations that the president has made, be it for the Supreme Court or elsewhere, have been by most objective accounts highly partisan (John Bolton, John Roberts, etc.) Why can't the president, for the good of the country, make it his priority to nominate candidates to major government posts who will win the strong support of the majority of both parties? (Doug Jeffery, Medford, N.J.)

Obviously Froomkin is not allowed to ask a question directly. so far as I know there has been no answer yet on this one.

comment on White House press approach

2006-06-02T02:34:00.000-07:00

Another search on Google blogsearch. There is nothing new attacking the liberal media for reporting Hidatha and related events.

However I did find a link to a report on the nature of reporting from the White House press corps. Keep scrolling down to the William Powers gets it subheading.

For someone outside the USA it certainly is hard to understand how Clinton came under so much investigation while the way in which the Iraq war started seems not to be on anything like the same level of press interest.

The William Powers report states that US citizens are asking some questions. Maybe the Froomkin tactic of publishing questions online will have some effect even though he is not allowed to ask any questions in person.

link to Haditha report

2006-06-02T02:20:00.000-07:00

The most recent Froomkin post has a link to this report.

Presumably there will be more comment later.

blogosphere sampling

2006-06-01T08:45:00.000-07:00

There is an opinion from Bertrand Pecquerie that the blogosphere in the USA is mostly about targeting liberal journalists. He seems to think the claims about citizen journalism as a force for democracy are hard to sustain given the evidence of sustained projects to wreck the careers of solid journalists.

A quick check on Google blogsearch shows that such blogs do exist. Lex E. Libertas repeats a text from Jed Babbin who was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. Is this typical of blogger opinion? Is it likely to be rported as such in some other media?

As print journalists would say, only time will tell.

Pressure on Murtha

2006-06-01T08:26:00.000-07:00

Found this story about pressure on Rep. John P. Murtha. This shows the climate in the USA. Dan Froomkin has yet to cover the response from the White House as far as I can find it. From the coverage so far on the BBC there is a strong probablity of international response when the details on Haditha are officially stated.

The report states that Michelle Malkin attacked Murtha and "media outlets" for "calling the alleged massacre a massacre before all the facts are in," and for "serving as al Jazeera satellite offices."

This response of blaming the messanger seems quite usual. al Jazeera represents opinion in many parts of the world. Froomkin is one of very few journalists who thought it worth following up the claims that Bush thought about, maybe as a joke, bombing al Jazeera around the time of their reporting on Fallujah.

Welcome for Snow

2006-05-16T11:01:00.000-07:00

A welcome for Tony snow as a breath of fresh air

"Giving the press routine access to a key player could potentially indicate a major change in the White House's relations with the press corps. Heck, simply engaging reporters and answering their questions could significantly improve those relations."

2006-05-16T10:56:00.000-07:00

Here is a home page for Dan Froomkin.

It turns out he is a proper print journalist after all.

About the al Jazeera memo

2006-05-16T10:45:00.000-07:00

I got into this through writing for OhmyNews about the al Jazeera memo, as reported by the London Daily Mirror a record of a conversation about possible action against the offices of the TV station. This is now subject to the Official Secrets Act in the UK. Maybe this should be presented as a feedom of speech issue. As in it is a limitation on free speech to be bombed. If that was proposed. Even if meant as a joke such a discussion would be a concern if it actually happened.

Looking through Google News it turned out that Dan Froomkin was about the only person writing about this in Washington. and he did add a comment that this issue merited a follow up question or two.

an important link

2006-05-16T10:37:00.000-07:00

Still searching on 'froomkin fan' I have now found an article explaining how the issues around Dan Froomkin came to the surface. I had seen something about this on Buzzmachine but did not really understand it.

Pressthink features an interview with other people from the Washington Post, proper journalists. OK so Dan is a blogger, that is he no more has a chance to ask questions than I do.

There are print journalists who should be thought of as really representing the Washington Post.

I still find the Froomkin page a good place to find out what is going on.

How this blog started

2006-05-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

I realise now that I have not really explained how this started. Recently around the We Media Forum in London i have been tracking back to find out a bit about the people involved. Jeff Jarvis seems a bit central. I don't always agree with him but he shows the links for what he writes so you can go back and make up your own mind. He seems very upset by Bertrand Pecquerie who has written about the shortcomings of the US blogosphere as he sees them. As far as I can make it out, Pecquerie believes in the good faith of professional journalists while the bloggers in the USA are only concerned to destroy the reputation of journalists -

"Take the case of Eason Jordan -- most of the pressure in the blogosphere was placed on Jordan to resign, completely overshadowing the real issue -- whether journalists were being targeted in Iraq. A small number of bloggers were able to turn the attention of the public and the media from major issues to secondary details."

He gives other examples but I feel that he may be looking only for examples that fit his argument. Anyway there is no harm in continuing to find counter examples. He may be right of course about the general trend. As a proper journalist would say, only time will tell.

More fans

2006-05-16T10:12:00.000-07:00

A bit of research has shown that there are quite a lot of Froomkin fans.

"God Bless Dan Froomkin..."
says The Oklahoma Hippy

Of course this is because Froomkin has provided some text that can be agreed with. This starts from an address on Veteran's day

"Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs," Bush said.

"[M]ore than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power," he noted.

And, he concluded: "The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. (Applause.) These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

Froomkin comments

"But Bush's argument is deeply flawed. Far from being baseless, the charge that he intentionally misled the public in the run-up to war is built on a growing amount of evidence. And the longer Bush goes without refuting that evidence in detail, the more persuasive it becomes.

And his most prized talking point -- that many Democrats agreed with him at the time -- is problematic. Many of those Democrats did so because they believed the information the president gave them. Now they are coming to the conclusion that they shouldn't have."

This is enough to give some confidence to those of us who have been wondering about such issues for a while.

Cheney evidence

2006-05-15T10:25:00.000-07:00

Dan Froomkin seems to be on the case

I still can't follow the details on this one but I have noticed an article at OhmyNews. where I send my own occasional stories about what happens in the UK.

In the UK the press seems to have backed off the idea that Jack Straw was moved out of the Foreign Office for some reason. Stories disappear here sometimes so it is interesting that US reporting seems to hang on in there.

Fishing and the fourth amendment

2006-05-09T09:50:00.000-07:00

Having started this blog I am paying more attention to the Froomkin pages. Previously I just looked there when I needed guidance about something that came up.

At the moment it is mostly about George Bush liking to go fishing. There are also links to interpretations about the fourth amendment and Gen. Michael V. Hayden.

"When Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder Newspapers properly characterized it, Hayden insisted, incorrectly, that that requirement for search and seizure was reasonableness, rather than probable cause."

So Froomkin is not a wildly dangerous person if he concentrates on debate within the constitution. So it seems observing from the UK anyway.

Some background and bio

2006-05-07T05:58:00.000-07:00

Found this page when looking for a photograph

Now a squidoo lens exists

2006-05-07T05:56:00.000-07:00

A page has started at Squidoo. Not much there but more will follow later.

Intro

2006-05-07T05:03:00.000-07:00

I have started this after the 'We Media' forum last week and the events around Jack Straw being sacked as UK Foreign Secretary. Who is this 'we'? we all wonder, from various points of view. No intention to get Dan Froomkin into more trouble than he faces already. But he seems a good reference point to link to.

More later. I am also setting up a shwicki so will go back to that now I know the url for this blog.