The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
thedissenter.org
The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
1–10 of 89 posts
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#2Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#3Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?
No. I'm being paid off by a different guy
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#4The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context.
To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#5The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.
What's the implication? That the author is hiding the fact that this is an opinion piece? Or that it's odd to be against the extradition?
It's called The Dissenter and they explicitly mention that they support whistleblowers in their about page.
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#6The author is clearly against the extradition of Julian Assange, and the piece comes across as very much written in that context. To be clear: I'm not offering an opinion either way on the rights and wrongs of that, but the piece itself comes down very much on one side of the fence.
The Assange case seems relevant and topical. And regardless, what side of the fence would you expect somebody writing an article about press freedom and censorship to be on? To support extraditing to the US somebody who has never lived or worked there, after it was revealed US officials literally planned to kidnap and/or assassinate him? [1]. And only for the charge of revealing war crimes (apart from some trumped up “hacking” charges that the key witness now admitted lying about? [2]).
I really do think somebody would have to be either hopelessly, desperately naive or deliberately lying to themselves to believe Assange could receive a fair trial in the US, and I don’t think it’s reasonable to assert that the US has any kind of jurisdiction over him.
1. https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/27/22696436/cia-kidnap-julia...
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#7Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?
No.
It doesn't help that it struck me as drawn-out and disjointed.
Worse - I never got the sense that the public would much care if the facts that the DMSA is keeping secret could be freely published in Britain. Nor (post-Snowden, and having read about some of America's secret gag orders) that the UK is up to anything all that bad (by the modern-day western world's very low standards).
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#8I 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 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.
Edit to add 3. It says that a D Notice was used to suppress a link between Sergei Skirpal's handler and Orbis Intelligence, while the only sources provided negate that
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#9Should I read anything sinister into the complete lack of comments (after one hour, as I write this) on this article?
Perhaps no one has anything to say about it. If you're eager for an opinion: I was already familiar with D-Notices—they've been around in some form since 1912—and I think they're a necessary tool to stop the UK press publishing information they shouldn't publish. I don't believe they are egregiously abused although there is scope for abuse and they have been abused in the past. Super-injunctions are more worrying to me because there is even less democratic accountability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-injunctions_in_English_l...
Re: The D-Notice: A British Way of Censoring the Press
#10I 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 deception, then perhaps it isn't spin. This experience could be a reflection of the information you consume.
In the interest of avoiding inflammatory discussions, I'll leave it to other commentators to discuss the veracity of either side.