by luxpir on 6/8/23, 6:26 AM with 1 comments
by ttctciyf on 6/8/23, 7:38 AM
The newspaper initially ignored national security advisories (D-Notices) which had suppressed and distorted reporting on Snowden in other more co-operative UK press. This independence resulted in a show of force by government where GCHQ staff supervised the (pointless) destruction of Guardian computers which had copies of Snowden's documents. Shortly thereafter The Guardian weakened its stance:
> The Guardian was then the only major newspaper that could be relied upon by whistleblowers in the US and British security bodies to receive and cover their exposures, a situation which posed a challenge to security agencies.
> The increasingly aggressive overtures made to The Guardian worked. The committee chair noted that after GCHQ had overseen the smashing up of the newspaper’s laptops “engagement … with The Guardian had continued to strengthen”.
> Moreover, he added, there were now “regular dialogues between the secretary and deputy secretaries and Guardian journalists”.
[...]
> But the most important part of this charm and threat offensive was getting The Guardian to agree to take a seat on the D-Notice Committee itself. The committee minutes are explicit on this, noting that “the process had culminated by [sic] the appointment of Paul Johnson (deputy editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC [i.e. D-Notice Committee] member”.
1: https://declassifieduk.org/how-the-uk-security-services-neut...