UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases • Hacker News Board

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#201

Post by advisedwang » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 3:53 PM UTC

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #28

> These individuals had also been quoted, featured, or otherwise used as commentators in UK media coverage of defence, conflict, or national security issues. If they are promoting defence spending or plugging their employers products that's bad, but using their experience to comment on the Iran war or Ukraine, or Russian/Chinese Spy networks doesn't seem that bad?

I think it should always be disclosed. Even when they aren't explicitly advocating for a direct benefit to their company, their overall analysis is colored by their interests. The defense industry is going to amp up risks of an aggressor, downplay the risk of appearing to be aggressive, downplay non-military foreign policy strategies etc. Allow the defense industry to influence how we think about foreign events is certainly going to influence how we think about policy and spending.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#202

Post by NopIdoN » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

defrost wrote: post #38

buran77 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Quack doctors spruiking amazing new treatments (that they hold shares in). Doctors commonly have kickback arrangements to prescribe specific medication. Sometimes it's the correct course of action they just always go for the particular brand, other times it's the wrong course of action but they prescribe it anyway for the kickback (the OxyContin scandal comes to mind).

Pharma reps "bribing" doctors prescribing habits is a thing, for sure, and varies in degree by country. This is a separate issue for media reporting on (say) new tanning treatments that are endorsed on screen during traditional "news hours" in undeclared infomercial segments that feature "independant" medical experts gushing over benefits of perineum UV treatments. Frequently both the company that paid for the faux n…

Try TainTan™ Today!

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#203

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:48 PM UTC

k1m wrote: post #158

flumpcakes wrote: post #155

Surely all experts are employed in some form in their field? Should we have their entire CV read out before their expertise is given on a subject matter? Unless there is a clear conflict of interest, such as an "expert" urging a particular course of action which aligns to benefit their employers, then the audience should probably just engage their critical thinking a bit more. The majority of UK experts will probably…

> Unless there is a clear conflict of interest, such as an "expert" urging a particular course of action That's exactly the issue

The listed supposed conflicts of interest mostly aren't any clearer than the baseline assumption "ex generals will generally favour more defence spending" which anyone with more than two brain cells should already be working on.

How is an General Everard being a patron of an armed forces charity, a software company enhancing onboarding experiences, a skills training company or even an "informal network of strategic thinkers" who write blogs likely to influence his defence spending views more than being a general?

It's not like it's standard journalistic practice to provide the entire resume of any other type of commentator.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#204

Post by eduction » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:52 PM UTC

JdeBP wrote: post #76

It is interesting to look at the details and see who the (news) 'media' are in this case. Going through the details, I find 1 instance (under Kemp) of the BBC, and everyone else is the 'usual suspects', the Telegraph , the Mail , GB News , the Sun , the Times , and so forth. The Guardian is only mentioned in context of exposing these conflicts of interests; and whilst I am surprised to find LBC and Nation Cymru as no…

How much of that is down to the Guardian being disinclined to air views seen as pro military? Or not asking the sorts of questions where such views would naturally be called upon. For example a left publication is less likely to be concerned about a(n alleged) lack of military readiness.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#205

Post by eduction » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 4:54 PM UTC

JdeBP wrote: post #146

k1m wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, that's a real stretch. It's apparent to anyone reading what his comment implies. And this is far from an isolated case, if you think the Guardian is an exception. We're all technical here, easy to use Google search and look up the names in the report and see how often the Guardian and the other "better" papers disclose the arms industry links. (Oh and the political party he's affiliated to isn't what's und…

No, You're the one stretching things. If you want to provide an example from The Guardian that actually works, and it is as easy to do so as you say, go ahead. As I said, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a blind spot, given who is on the staff and the byline of this very piece. But you haven't here. Rather, you've showed an article where the primary complaint of the headlined report, that the potential biases of a…

Moving the goalposts. I don't see anything in the methodology of the original study filtering for views favorable to the defense sector.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#206

Post by dredmorbius » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 5:04 PM UTC

itopaloglu83 wrote: post #148

squeegmeister wrote: post #85

Manufacturing Consent continues being relevant

For the unfamiliar. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky

And based on the earlier concept by Walter Lippmann, first expressed in his 1922 book Public Opinion, which arguably birthed 20th century putatively impartial professional journalism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)#Manufact...>

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#207

Post by Ntrails » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 5:22 PM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #157

flumpcakes wrote: post #155

Surely all experts are employed in some form in their field? Should we have their entire CV read out before their expertise is given on a subject matter? Unless there is a clear conflict of interest, such as an "expert" urging a particular course of action which aligns to benefit their employers, then the audience should probably just engage their critical thinking a bit more. The majority of UK experts will probably…

If somebody is discussing about defense in the media the viewers/readers should know that the person works for the defense industry in a commercial role. Presenting them merely as experts because they are "former X" creates a false impression of impartiality.

For talking heads/opinion you have, I would say, two choices:

    - Retired people with historic experience.  The longer since they were actively involved in the sector, the less useful they will be of course.  There is also going to be something of a demographics bias here.
    - Currently employed people, and given their primary skillset is "Defense industry expertise" I'm going to posit that they always have a commercial role in the defense industry.  Maybe there's some subset with a non-commercial role or a purely political role... but both of those have their own implications too

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#208

Post by k1m » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #203

k1m wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unless there is a clear conflict of interest, such as an "expert" urging a particular course of action That's exactly the issue

The listed supposed conflicts of interest mostly aren't any clearer than the baseline assumption "ex generals will generally favour more defence spending" which anyone with more than two brain cells should already be working on. How is an General Everard being a patron of an armed forces charity, a software company enhancing onboarding experiences, a skills training company or even an "informal network of strategic t…

Definition of conflict of interest: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust.

Army generals are in a position of trust, we assume they're acting in the public interest. Whether that's for more spending, more war, or less.

Here's an ex general's view on war and military spending:

> Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Eisenhower

The point is, there's clearly a problem if the public are getting opinions on this stuff from people who now have undisclosed private interests.

Shouldn't the public know that the former army general telling them that military spending needs to increase, now has the following roles?

> Paid positions included working part-time as a strategic advisor for Schroders bank, plus advisory roles at Helsing – a German AI defence start-up – and an insurance firm. ...spends 30 days per year “as a thought partner for Tony Blair in his role as Executive Chairman” at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. ...is chairman of Equilibrium Gulf Limited, which advises the crown prince of Bahrain on the autocratic country’s notoriously brutal interior ministry.”

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#209

Post by notahacker » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

k1m wrote: post #208

notahacker wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The listed supposed conflicts of interest mostly aren't any clearer than the baseline assumption "ex generals will generally favour more defence spending" which anyone with more than two brain cells should already be working on. How is an General Everard being a patron of an armed forces charity, a software company enhancing onboarding experiences, a skills training company or even an "informal network of strategic t…

Definition of conflict of interest: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust. Army generals are in a position of trust, we assume they're acting in the public interest. Whether that's for more spending, more war, or less. Here's an ex general's view on war and military spending: > Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired si…

> Shouldn't the public know that the former army general telling them that military spending needs to increase, now has the following roles?

I mean, the public can look up his current roles and the grounds for clearing him to take them on a government website if they really want to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/carter-nick-chief... Or read what some of his former US counterparts said about him on Wikipedia if they're searching for stronger reasons to disagree with him...

But like most adults, I understand that former generals are not magical bastions of neutrality towards the defence sector, but people who generally have a very strong interest in the government spending on the institutions they devoted most of their lives to (Even Eisenhower spent more of the government budget on his military than any of these guys would ever ask for...). So the likelihood someone has a bias towards spending money on soldiers is very well captured by describing them as a someone who had a long and distinguished career as a soldier, without the need to mention every other tangentially related job they might have had.

So no, I don't think any of these part time roles are remotely more relevant to Gen Carter's comments the UK should spend of its budget on defence increases than the fact he's worked in defence all his life, and the comments echo similar comments he made in more peaceful times in 2018 when he didn't hold any of these positions but was Chief of Staff for UK defence. Not even some part-time consultancy for a German drone startup that doesn't have any commercial relationship with the MoD, never mind his advisory work for banks, insurers or advice on questionable interior security operations in Bahrain. You might as well ask why you saw fit not to mention Eisenhower's role at Columbia University when quoting him.

Now if he was specifically saying "the MoD should focus on autonomous systems and procure hardware from German startups" his advisory position with Helsing might actually be more relevant to his desire to see more funding for the defence sector than his most prominent roles in the defence sector, and ACOBA might even question the appropriateness of his interventions. But that's not what he said, and so we can associate his throwaway quotes with the stuff he's actually known for.

Re: UK media fails to disclose defence sector links in nearly 60% of cases

#210

Post by ajsnigrutin » Thu, Jun 04, 2026, 8:48 PM UTC

dgroshev wrote: post #80

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the UK we're talking about here. To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist. At some point you have to ask, is it really for def…

You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point. But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?

I mean... if you want to go to current times and politicaly sensitive topics, UK is defending the genocide of gazans and the attacks on iran right now by protecting israeli airspace. So yeah, genocide seems to not be a problem for the UK.

Again, nothing to do with defending the british people.

In a democracy, any military action (except fighting pack when directly attacked) should start with a referendum to see if people actually want to pay for that. (it also makes it less problematic for the other side to destroy the infrastructure when fighting back, since it's not just some smiling Tony choosing to attack then, but the people too).