![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
John Rentoul
John Rentoul is chief political commentator for The Independent on Sunday, and visiting fellow at Queen Mary, University of London, where he teaches contemporary history. Previously he was chief leader writer for The Independent. He has written a biography of Tony Blair, whom he admired more at the end of his time in office than he did at the beginning.
You can contact John in the comments area or email him at j.rentoul@independent.co.uk
You can contact John in the comments area or email him at j.rentoul@independent.co.uk
Shock new revelations point towards a conspiracy at the heart of the establishment to mount a cover-up over allegations that British politicians have colluded with torture.
Yes, I am talking about the media coverage - or coverupage - of the Binyam Mohamed case. The shock new revelations consist of a series of barely comprehensible so-called news stories about the case that manage to use the words collusion, cover-up, torture and David Miliband in such a way as to suggest that the Foreign Secretary is up to no good.* This reporting contrives to conceal rather than enlighten as to the nature of allegations of British complicity with torture.
The reporting of this story is another case study in the the unaccountable power of some journalists, an establishment whose narrative is dominant regardless of its relation to the facts. Because they start from the premise that the Government is malign, these narrators present themselves as a brave anti-establishment. The reality, however, is often that politicians are principled but weak, while it can be that journalists are unprincipled and powerful.
Once again, Labour ministers are at the mercy of a pincer operation between the Daily Mail (assisted by the opportunistic William Hague) and the liberal media: The Independent, The Guardian and the BBC. The same forces that became obsessed with presumed government wickedness in making the case for military action in Iraq, in the treatment of David Kelly and in nominating lenders for peerages are now determined to get the Foreign Secretary.
Hence the repeated so-called news stories with a subtext of "the net is closing in", "is this the smoking gun?", "why hasn't he resigned yet?" and "is this enough words to fill the prearranged space?".
I do not think that Miliband will resign, because, as in the cases of Iraq, Kelly and peerages, the facts simply do not fit the prearranged template. Clive Stafford Smith, Binyam Mohamed's lawyer, even acknowledges in tomorrow's Independent on Sunday that the Foreign Secretary
You can disagree with his decision, but to conclude from it that he, or the British Government or the British security services have colluded in torture is media spin.
* Take for example this "news" story published in the Mail yesterday. A prize awaits anyone that can identify anything new in it, apart from "it was claimed last night" , which turns out to refer to Edward Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, saying something he has said several times before. Another offender is, of course, Peter Oborne, a journalist with whom I have tangled many times before.
Yes, I am talking about the media coverage - or coverupage - of the Binyam Mohamed case. The shock new revelations consist of a series of barely comprehensible so-called news stories about the case that manage to use the words collusion, cover-up, torture and David Miliband in such a way as to suggest that the Foreign Secretary is up to no good.* This reporting contrives to conceal rather than enlighten as to the nature of allegations of British complicity with torture.
The reporting of this story is another case study in the the unaccountable power of some journalists, an establishment whose narrative is dominant regardless of its relation to the facts. Because they start from the premise that the Government is malign, these narrators present themselves as a brave anti-establishment. The reality, however, is often that politicians are principled but weak, while it can be that journalists are unprincipled and powerful.
Once again, Labour ministers are at the mercy of a pincer operation between the Daily Mail (assisted by the opportunistic William Hague) and the liberal media: The Independent, The Guardian and the BBC. The same forces that became obsessed with presumed government wickedness in making the case for military action in Iraq, in the treatment of David Kelly and in nominating lenders for peerages are now determined to get the Foreign Secretary.
Hence the repeated so-called news stories with a subtext of "the net is closing in", "is this the smoking gun?", "why hasn't he resigned yet?" and "is this enough words to fill the prearranged space?".
I do not think that Miliband will resign, because, as in the cases of Iraq, Kelly and peerages, the facts simply do not fit the prearranged template. Clive Stafford Smith, Binyam Mohamed's lawyer, even acknowledges in tomorrow's Independent on Sunday that the Foreign Secretary
has worked admirably hard to secure Binyam’s release from Guantanamo Bay and should be congratulated for his genuine commitment.
Of course, it is probable that Mohamed has been badly treated, and it is possible, although the evidence that has been adduced so far is circumstantial, that British spies should have known he was being tortured.
But the allegations of collusion by British agents in his torture are separate from the point at issue in this month's court judgment that triggered the fuss. Those allegations, which do not relate to his time as Foreign Secretary, have been referred by Miliband to the Attorney General for investigation. The judges, meanwhile, had to rule on whether they were allowed to publish documents obtained from US intelligence. The documents had already been made available - by the Foreign Office - to Mohamed's lawyers. The only issue was whether or not they could be made public. Miliband said no, on the principle that we would not want our secret intelligence published in other countries.
But the allegations of collusion by British agents in his torture are separate from the point at issue in this month's court judgment that triggered the fuss. Those allegations, which do not relate to his time as Foreign Secretary, have been referred by Miliband to the Attorney General for investigation. The judges, meanwhile, had to rule on whether they were allowed to publish documents obtained from US intelligence. The documents had already been made available - by the Foreign Office - to Mohamed's lawyers. The only issue was whether or not they could be made public. Miliband said no, on the principle that we would not want our secret intelligence published in other countries.
You can disagree with his decision, but to conclude from it that he, or the British Government or the British security services have colluded in torture is media spin.
Comments