Fighting Fake Defence News

In an era of ‘fake news’ it is easy to question what you read and wonder whether there is any truth in. This is particularly true of Defence reporting, which due to the very nature of the subject, where you have a multitude of complex issues wrapped in secrecy, vested interests, subtly different views depending on where you sit in the system all combining to make it hard to accurately report accurate objective facts.

Despite this, the UK has got a plethora of very good journalists who write on defence matters and have acquired a good reputation for knowing their stuff. One only must look at broadcasters and writers like Jonathan Beale at the BBC, Alistair Bunkall at Sky, Larissa Brown at the Mail, Deb Haynes at the Times and David Willetts at the Sun. There are good specialist publications and writers / commentators out there too, such as defence & aviation specialists like the team at Shepard Media or the many smaller publications and consultants like the UK Defence Journal, Gareth Corfield at the Register or Phil Ingram.

All of the above names are worth reading and following because they write and broadcast about defence, often with very different interpretations on subjects, but they do so knowledgably and truthfully based on the interpretations, material and sources that they have available to them. They also all engage regularly and openly on Twitter, making it possible for commentators and the public to engage with them and share views and thoughts. Humphrey doesn’t always agree with their articles and will happily write blogs to challenge and counter their views, but without doubt all of the above represent good examples of sources of journalism that is worth thinking about and will be truthful.

This matters because not all articles out there are true, not all articles can be trusted and at times can be bordering on misleading. In a world where Fake News is an increasing challenge to deal with, it is vital that the press in the UK play a leading role in producing accurate accounts of what is going on.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

On Sunday 8 April the Express ran a story HERE claiming that major defence cuts were due that would see the Royal Navy keep ALBION and BULWARK but lose up to 6 other ships in the process. It also suggested that the Army faced cuts of 7000 personnel and that the RAF would apparently be mothballing its entire fleet of Chinook helicopters (some 60 strong).

The article was full of errors that were inaccurate, from basic terminology errors (e.g. referring to the Royal Marines as the ‘Commando Regiment’) or getting the name of the First Sea Lord wrong (who is Admiral Sir Phillip White?). It then suggests that ‘sources at the Army Board’ that is ‘headed by General Sir Nick Carter’ were providing information to the report. This is quite impressive given that the Army Board exists as a ceremonial meeting once per year and is chaired by the Secretary of State Gavin Williamson MP and not CGS.

The most concerning issue though is that the article extensively quotes a ‘leaked MOD memo’ that talks about the state of refits of some RN ships such as HMS NORTHUMBERLAND and manpower problems for ships like HMS PORTLAND.

The problem is that this isn’t actually a leaked MOD memo. It’s a letter sent from a former Royal Navy rating to his local MP (Susan Jones) who quoted from it during a debate in the House of Commons a few months ago. In other words, the so-called ‘leaked memo’ is nothing more than a constituency letter from a private citizen.

What is the Truth?

The reason this sort of thing matters is that people form opinions based on what they read in the press. The UK media remains highly trusted as an objective source of advice and information and people assume that what is published there meets high standards. People will worry when they read information that they believe to be true suggesting that the nations defences are in dire risk.

It is absolutely right and proper that Departments are held to account and that their activity is scrutinised and highlighted where risks exist. Impropriety, lying or misleading the public should be called out and should be used to hold Public Servants to account. But surely the same should apply to Journalists too? This story is arguably fundamentally misleading its readers by  suggesting that a letter to an MP is in fact a ‘leaked MOD document’ which is a totally different thing.

It is one thing for the public to read a genuinely leaked MOD memo that states openly the manning situation and worry. It is also entirely right for journalists to publish material – their job is to make the headlines. But when you make up information, packaging up a random letter and pretending that it is something completely different from what it is, isn’t that called lying to the public?  

The frustration is that there are plenty of people out there who don’t know much about Defence, but who will believe this utter garbage. They will assume it is true and they will not realise that they are being lied to by the media. If you trust that the people you read are telling the truth, then you will not question what you read.

Moving forward there seem to be two key things that can be done. Firstly, there is a responsibility on defence commentators to engage constructively with Defence Journalists and broadcasters. Use the access through Twitter and social media to foster constructive debate and information. Don’t come up with silly ideas like the ‘defence reporting hall of shame’ or other nonsense.

Fake News?

Like many niche areas such as health or public transport, Defence is a difficult subject to understand or to report on accurately due to its complexity. We also live in a world where we can add real value in building understanding to the media, particularly in a time when stories break in seconds and then everyone is scrabbling to play catch up. This is where building good relationships helps steer people, inform them and get good commentary and reporting out there.

Work with the media, engage positively with them and tell them about the subject you are passionate about – there is enormous scope to use social media as a real force for good. Every reader of this blog can help shape debate and provide information and advice.

Secondly, where there is reporting which crosses the line from what you deem to be ‘poor’ to being in breach of the Regulators code, then don’t be afraid to make a complaint about it. For instance, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has a very clear editorial code, (HERE) which includes a section on accuracy stating:

“The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images including headlines not supported by the text’

It is a personal decision whether you feel that suggesting that a letter from a private citizen to their MP that was then cited as a leaked MOD memo is inaccurate or misleading. If you do feel that this is the case then a complaint can be made to IPSO (HERE) who will, if appropriate, launch a Standards Investigation into the article in question.

We are lucky in the quality of our journalists overall, and while many articles on this blog over the years have been produced as a result of reading a specific media piece, it is about looking at an alternative view and not suggesting that the authors are lying or misleading their audience. In the very small series of cases where this does happen, the public should consider whether to take steps to see a correction made.

Ultimately no one should profit from fake news.