Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

thedissenter.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#11

Post by tristor »

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.

This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful information within the dossier, but generally speaking it was mostly hearsay and unverified allegations and not completed when it was leaked. The leaking was clearly politically motivated and it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations which ultimately resulted in only minimal parts of the content being verified. There are many people who are politically aligned with the leaker of the dossier that believe the dossier is true because the general thrust of the allegations was true, but the actual specifics were mostly false, and the truth of what did occur mostly was found in the later investigation, which did not corroborate the dossier.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#12

Post by notavalleyman »

aww_dang wrote: post #10
notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. There are at least two ways to interpret this: 1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue. 2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the decepti…

> but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin

You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin.

Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler and the Orbis Intelligence company whose founder wrote the dossier. There is again no souring or backing up this allegation. I didn't understand here either, why the author is using these unsourced points to discuss D Notices

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#13

Post by notavalleyman »

tristor wrote: post #11
notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. This was a political football during the last US election, since then it's been more thoroughly investigated and the majority of the content has either been proven false, or has yet to be verified as true. There was some truthful inform…

Thanks for the context - I didn't really understand you though - why do you say the actual specifics were mostly false, while also saying the Congress investigation verified some parts and couldn't verify others?

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#14

Post by _dain_ »

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article.

If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#15

Post by colpabar »

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

According to the new york times:

> Was the dossier a reliable source of information?

> No. It has become clear over time that its sourcing was thin and sketchy.

https://archive.ph/2fHH5

This was on page 1 of google for "steele dossier", and the title is "Why the Discredited Dossier Does Not Undercut the Russia Investigation", so it seems to be pretty widely accepted that it was a bunch of nonsense.

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#16

Post by AveburySutton »

Just to put this window Mr.Overton left us where it belongs, it is a criminal offence in Britain to say anything deemed homophobic even within the confines of your own domicile even to your own family members.

Law described: https://www.christian.org.uk/news/views-expressed-in-private...

Law passed: https://www.gov.scot/news/hate-crime-bill-passed/

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#17

Post by notavalleyman »

_dain_ wrote: post #14
notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

>2. It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. If you aren't aware of it, that's on you. Frankly it amazes me that people still think it's real.

Maybe, but I am not including it in any of my articles, so it's not really on me to know everything about it.

Another user provided an NYT link which suggested it was real, but only indicative and not necessarily factual.

https://archive.ph/2fHH5

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#18

Post by aww_dang »

notavalleyman wrote: post #12
aww_dang wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It says the Steele dossier is largely discredited - I wasn't aware of any discrediting, let alone total. I don't know why the author thought this spin was necessary for the article. There are at least two ways to interpret this: 1)If the Steele dossier is legitimate, then the author is propagandizing the issue. 2)If the Steele dossier is discredited (in some circles) propaganda, but you are not aware of the decepti…

> but you are not aware of the deception, then perhaps it isn't spin You are quite right that I am lacking complete awareness, so I think it would behoove the author to at least link to something to back up their statement, and without sourcing it does feel like spin. Similarly, there's a section of the article where the author suggests D-notices were used to suppress a link between Sergei Skripal's alleged handler a…

I agree that sources are valuable and important. My preference would be that they are included. However they are rarely cited in a meaningful way, even in mainstream publications.

The beauty of these kinds of discussions is that one could spend about 5-10 minutes searching and come up with a plethora of sources supporting either claim from whichever side you prefer.

From this premise the sources become almost irrelevant. You could examine the source taking a given position on either issue and declare it false. You need only find a contradictory source suitable to your biases.

You could instead reason about the outcome of the accusations leveled in the Steele dossier. If those accusations were truthful, why was action not taken? Again, the partisan biases take hold:

1) Action was not taken because the dossier was fabricated

2) Action was not taken because the accused held political power

Getting back to the larger topic, I ask you: Does censorship enhance your ability to trust the media and discern information, or does it hinder it?

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#19

Post by [deleted] »

notavalleyman wrote: post #8

I wanted to get behind this more but there were a few sections that had me doubting. 1. It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice - the source supplied didn't really back that up and it didn't sound right to me. Maybe someone can share examples of Snowden-leak-related stories which would have been in UK public interest but were only covered abroad? 2. It says the Steele dossier is large…

[deleted]

Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press

#20

Post by mike_hearn »

KineticLensman wrote: post #2

Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?

D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out. I've known they existed for many years, I'm not quite sure why but there's no particular reason I'd know about them. I'm not a journalist and never was.

The Official Secrets Act is probably bad law, it's one of the many places where the USA has superior laws that are much better at keeping bad government in check. The various attempts to expand censorship in the UK are also very bad, in my view. The D-Notice system is difficult to really get worked up about because, as this exposé makes clear, it's:

a. Voluntary.

b. Sometimes ignored, even by major outlets like the Guardian.

c. Largely made up of journalists themselves.

d. So shadowy that they publish photos of themselves and upload meeting notes to government websites.

e. Apparently very tightly concerned with stuff like publishing the names of spies, soldiers, troop movements, etc. The classical sorts of information that has a very direct and obvious reason for being kept out of the press.

The article tries to build a case that it's being used in over-broad ways like with Assange, but honestly I don't buy it. The media doesn't need some shadowy committee to stop it covering the Assange story properly. At some point it became received wisdom in media circles to hate him and journalists need no incentive to bury stories if they find them inconvenient. The Guardian in particular has a long running and well documented vendetta against Assange. You'd see the same approach if D-Notices existed or not.

Post reply on HN