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

21–30 of 89 posts

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

#21

Post by colpabar »

notavalleyman wrote: post #17
_dain_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

How can a document be "real" if it's full of "not necessarily factual" claims?

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

#22

Post by jjoonathan »

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…

> it was used as the basis of starting Congressional investigations

This is false and a right-wing talking point. Papadopoulos's bragging launched the investigation.

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

#23

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

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?

Personally, I think there is a level of fatigue that has set in. Post 9/11 Americans had a lot of their innocence taken away from them as various leaks ( including Assange's, Snowden's and others' ). Note that I say Americans, because it is genuinely difficult for me to gauge it elsewhere ( and quite frankly, I might be wrong about US too ).

I could offer anecdotes, but my interactions with my social circles more and more indicate 'well, duh' to stories like this and not post-1981 book reading horror of realization that humans can be quite horrible to one another. And, well, since it is clear now that some information is suppressed and some is heavily promoted -- the distrust of general populace appears to be quite high.

And this is yet another reason why I constantly argue against the temptations of censorship. That said, this is the path we are on.

So to answer your question. No, I don't think it is sinister at all. It is just the current state of affairs. Some subjects are more risky than others.

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

#24

Post by db48x »

notavalleyman wrote: post #17
_dain_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

It’s a real dossier full of hearsay, lies, calumny, etc. Steele was paid to assemble it, by a lawyer working for Hillary Clinton no less, for the express purpose of smearing Trump in the hopes that something would stick.

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

#25

Post by AnimalMuppet »

notavalleyman wrote: post #13
tristor wrote: post #11

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. 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?

There were a large number of allegations in the dossier. So, pulling numbers out of the air, but... say it was something like 70% of the allegations were false, 10% were verified true, and 20% could not be verified as either true or false.

As I said, the numbers are made up. But I think the general gist is right - mostly false, a bit true, and some that is unknown.

But this is why people say the dossier was discredited - the majority of it was false.

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

#26

Post by NovemberWhiskey »

mike_hearn wrote: post #20
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…

>D-Notices aren't quite as obscure as the article makes out.

I think that puts it very mildly. There was a gigantic public scandal as far back as 1967 about D-notices.

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

#27

Post by fallingknife »

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…

The Steele dossier was paid political opposition research, and therefore does not need to be discredited. It is false unless proven true. You could be excused for not knowing this important detail if you get your news from US "journalists."

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

#28

Post by bena »

_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.

It's real, it exists.

But people who want to ignore it like to pretend it's something that it's not. It's raw intelligence. It's saying "Hey, here are things we heard you should check out."

It's a lot like the VAERS database. It doesn't prove anything on its own, but it can indicate things we should look into more closely.

And that's how a lot of people treated it: These are things we should probably check out.

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

#29

Post by notavalleyman »

aww_dang wrote: post #18
notavalleyman wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 irrelev…

Not having access to the names and methods of intelligence agencies doesn't hinder my trust in the media, no, and I can't really establish from this article that much more than that is happening. If anything it boosts my trust, knowing that these publications are considered legitimate enough by the UK government to be on their d-notice distribution list.

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

#30

Post by nonrandomstring »

mike_hearn wrote: post #20
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…

Yes there's a lot of looseness. Considering the history of the D-notice in wartime (1914-18 and 1938-45), when the stakes were high, it's a typical British implementation of "strong flexibility". The problem may actually be over-compliance. The days of Woodward and Bernstein have given way to journalists whose idea of ambitiously advancing their careers involves not offending anyone and running to mummy to ask permission at every juncture - not of government but their corporate/advertising lords.
Post reply on HN