Jumping to Leaked Conclusions...

 

Footage of the failed take-off, and subsequent ejection by the pilot from an F35 jet, embarked onboard HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH has been leaked on social media. This footage, taken using what appears to be a portable electronic device filming footage on a TV, was taken without permission, and shared.

Within hours the story had spread through a variety of Whatsapp groups, other social media channels and Twitter, before making the transition onto mainstream media channels. Within 24hrs it was being reported across both British and global media, and has now become the source of a variety of memes.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

There are several issues to reflect on from this situation, particularly around leaking, operational security and ‘the right to know’.

Leaking is something which is both the lifeblood of government policy and also something that happens for a variety of less noble reasons. Leakers can be malicious – people with access to information that they choose to share for ideological or malevolent reasons.

Others can be those who are leaking as a way of trying to raise an issue of concern that they feel unable to handle internally. This could be as a crisis of conscience, or because they feel that something is going on that the public should know about.

Finally there are those who leak, not intentionally or because they mean to share government information, but because we have the means to easily create and distribute content electronically, and very limited ways to control its rapid dissemination.

In this latter category we can probably put this incident – someone felt that it was appropriate to take footage of another TV and share it – for whatever reason, once shared, it rapidly escalated out of control, and soon made it into the public domain.

This is not the first incident where a member of the military has made a mistake that has gone viral – you only have to look at accounts from armed forces around the world where people have shared information or photos, only for it to quickly go out of control. There is an entire cottage industry for example around showing how Russian military personnel using social media can post images of their military activity in a way that compromises operational security.

From an operational security perspective, this is a growing risk. The explosion of ways to film content and send it quickly means it is much harder to prevent imagery being captured – it relies heavily on self-policing at a very low level, and people having the moral courage to call out those clearly doing something stupid, and stopping them. When practically everyone in a ships company or Infantry Bn has the means to send footage across the globe in seconds, you need an incredible level of self-discipline and control to ensure that you don’t make a mistake.

This proliferation of capability is matched by a significant change in attitudes by people towards the sharing of information. In a ‘need to share’ era, where the recruiting pool has grown up with a tablet or Iphone to hand practically all the time, the idea of not sharing is a bit odd. When you live your life on media sharing apps, why wouldn’t you share that cool image of the F35 going for a swim with your oppos – its an understandable instinct.

The challenge is how do you create a ‘need to know, need to know not to share’ culture among people who have grown up in an ever more integrated and connected digital world?

Trying to work out how to build a culture that respects this concept, and doesn’t resort to blunt retention negative measures like phone confiscation or switching off of external social media access is a real challenge. It requires a discussion on risk, and the willingness to accept an element of risk in order to trust and empower people, versus the potential likelihood that this could result in people breaking that trust in the manner seen here.

Education is perhaps the answer, not admonishments. It is hard to build a culture that says ‘leaking is bad’ when there seems to be a steady flow of government papers being leaked at very senior levels to journalists, to help shape or inform the information media battle. How can you hold someone to account for leaking social media footage, when far more egregious leaks occur at more senior levels, seemingly without punishment? Indeed, the RN has a habit of promoting individuals who leave briefcases on canals to First Sea Lord…

The way to approach this is about making people aware that actions have negative consequences and can be used in a way to harm others. Whether the UK likes it or not, it is in an information war, and other nations, less well disposed to the UK will take every opportunity to use leaked footage like this in a negative way.

If for example you want to write an article on how weak the UK military is, or how awful the F35 is as a fighter compared to your own nations efforts, then this footage is a dream come true. It helps build the narrative of a broken military, unable to even take off without breaking down. For those information warriors operating against UK targets, or trying to shape information and influence campaigns, this is manna from heaven.

The challenge for all Western militaries is to work out how to educate people who work for them about these risks in a way that is credible and taken onboard. It is likely that the same people who are incredibly proud of their Service and what they do, and wouldn’t dream of publicly harming it, are the ones using social media to go “Do not forward this but check this out” while sending the imagery onwards.

Trying to understand how to prepare people to fight in an information war that they didn’t even know they were participants in is a challenge. Ensuring they understand the importance of not filming everything, exercising control on the release of what they do see, and not sharing what they get is crucial here. There is a huge education campaign to be fought, which will only get more pronounced over time.

At the same time, there is a wider debate about how much should or should not be shared with the public about incidents like this. There was an interesting debate on social media about whether the MOD should have released this imagery from the outset, and let the world see what happened – after all, its in the public interest to see this, so why not release it and be truly open – we know an aircraft crashed, so what’s the harm in showing it off online?

This is a difficult debate to have and one that cuts to the heart of the relationship that the MOD has with journalists, and its one where arguably both parties have equally valid views.

The challenge for the MOD (and wider Government) is that when an aircraft crashes, a full investigation has to take place to identify what did, or did not happen. Often what emerges as the leading theory about the reasons for the crash at the start may, on deeper examination and interview turn out to be utterly wide of the mark.

There are various theories being reported about what may have caused this incident online, but until the jet is recovered, and the full investigation carried out, it is impossible to say whether they are accurate or not. We just do not know what caused that crash, and we will not know until such point as a full investigation has been done.

It could be that a very different set of reasons apply, which require deep forensic analysis, and an ability to speak to witnesses independently to build a proper chain of events that sets out in extreme detail what went wrong and why. It will also spot any possible errors, changes or issues that need to be addressed in future to prevent this happening again.

Until the reasons for the crash are properly understood, then there is no way that the MOD can answer any questions about the footage in isolation. Its incredibly important to wait until all the facts are known before you can say anything, no matter how obvious the causes may, superficially, appear to be.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

This desire for a measured and considered pause until such point as the facts are known sits uncomfortably with a news cycle where reaction is instantaneous and people expect information ASAP. It is telling how a wide range of people were approached to provide commentary on the crash, and offer their personal views on what may, or may not, have occurred.

The challenge is that these are opinions, not facts, and the MOD cannot offer a counter view on the situation right now. So, is it better to release imagery without comment or context, to prove that a jet did crash, or is it better to wait and release in due course as part of a formal report?

If the image was released to the media, then its easy to imagine the press spokesperson losing credibility by constantly having to say “I can’t answer that question at the moment” when pressed for more information on the loss. Nature and news abhors a vacuum and saying that the release would provide context ignores the fact that the follow up questions would place MOD in a difficult position – how can it provide objective truthful information to the media when it doesn’t know the answer to the questions they are asking?

It is perhaps right to ask what the driver is here with the news cycle – is it a case that news is about reporting an event, with footage and subjective opinions on what may have happened – in which case this approach may work, or is news about providing a report of an event with footage and both objective facts on what happened and also subjective comment from others?

Different people will have different views here, but the author errs to the view that it is important to report both facts and opinions, but it is perhaps best to not present evidence without the facts to back it up.

The wider question is one of timing – the media news cycle is never ending and built around a constant battle for getting coverage on an issue, then moving onto the next one. If the MOD had released this imagery shortly after the crash, it would quickly have been forgotten by the media and they’d have moved onto the next big thing hours later – to do this would though have resulted in MOD taking lasting credibility damage by issuing footage without the ability comment in an objective, factual way. Is this price really worth it, simply so journalists can get a bit of extra material for their story?

The additional question is why should the MOD or HMG carry out an act of releasing something that would damage its credibility and provide easy information for others to exploit? In the absence of factual information on what happened, releasing that information would be (and as proven, has been) an information operations boon to nations less likely to support the UK.

Part of the challenge here is that MOD on the one hand has to be open, honest and transparent about issues, while also being ready to carry out activity which involves doing some pretty unpleasant and nasty things to hurt people. These two objectives don’t always align – telling the truth that an aircraft has crashed does not necessarily mean the MOD is obliged to forcibly shoot itself in the foot in the name of ‘the public has a right to know’.

What swings this for the author in terms of saying that no, the footage should not be shared, is the fact that the MOD has excellent form for sharing in full its aircraft accident reports. These can be found on the MOD website, and go into incredible detail what happened, why it happened and provide objective analytical assessment of the reasons for the loss.

That this is openly available is a testament both to the MODs commitment to open government, and also the strength of the UK accident investigation regime, which is a real jewel in the crown when it comes to lesser known strengths of Defence.

Image by Ministry of Defence; © Crown copyright

The footage would have emerged regardless in this report, which as and when it is released (and no one yet knows the timetable for this) will provide the appropriate information on the incident. At this stage it will be possible to both show it, and explain what is actually going on, and not rely on breathless commentary from Colin (47) on Facebook, who after getting his PHD in virology from Dr Google, has become an instant expert in naval aviation losses, and would have served if it weren’t for the fact that the day he went to the recruiting office, they said there were no vacancies in the ‘sasssss’.

There will be a great deal to learn about this incident in time, and the public will learn about how the aircraft was lost in due course. But these things do not always happen quickly, and definitely not in line with the deadlines of newsrooms and news programmes. Trying to navigate the fine line between ‘need to know’ and ‘right to know’ and ‘you must know’ is a challenge and one that will occasionally cause friction between the media and the MOD, but on balance, on this occasion it seems right to not have released the footage early.

No matter how appealing it is to think that the military can move in line with the media cycle, this just isn’t possible – being able to explain this in a way that doesn’t imply the Public don’t have a right to know, and which suggests that the government has something to hide is a challenge.

But, for all of this commentary, ill informed speculation by social media users for whom the closest they’ve been to salt water is boiling some pasta, there is only one fact that really matters here.

The pilot ejected safely and was recovered – nothing else matters.