Martin Jay
The Grayzone's findings make for depressing reading for anyone old enough to remember when British journalism was the finest in the world.
From the truth about who really killed Diana to the depraved world of government officials sexually abusing children and the subsequent cover-up, it is now clear that nearly all major stories are either blocked from publication or rewritten by Soviet-style propaganda agents working for the British deep state.
Virtually nothing you read in British newspapers about security, defense, and wars is honest journalism. Instead, it is propaganda crafted by a new secret UK military department tasked with rewriting journalists' copy or, in some cases, simply ensuring their articles never see the light of day.
That is the shocking conclusion of a new investigation by The Grayzone, which obtained secret documents exchanged between the UK and Australian governments over Canberra's plans to adopt Britain's "off-the-shelf" operation and incorporate it into its own government practice for handling journalists.
The impressive reporting by Kit Klarenberg and William Evans reveals, in short, that the UK military has created its own censorship department. It either blocks journalists from exposing major stories of public interest or, more commonly, redrafts the thrust of journalists' pieces to present a different version to the gullible public.
A trove of secret communications reveals how the secretive Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee censors the output of British journalists while categorizing independent media as "extremist" for publishing "embarrassing" stories. What sounds like an account of secret police operations in Eastern Europe during the Soviet era, the documents show that this army intelligence department regularly blocks journalists from continuing to investigate a subject through a formal system called "D Notices" - which, remarkably, journalists almost always respect.
"The DSMA imposes what are known as D-Notices, gag-orders systematically suppressing information available to the public," The Grayzone report states.
The files provide the clearest view to date of this underground committee's inner workings, exposing which news items the state has sought to shape or keep from public view over the years. These include "the 2010 death of a GCHQ codebreaker, MI6 and British special forces activity in the Middle East and Africa, the sexual abuse of children by government officials, and the death of Princess Diana," the report reveals.
British media, it seems, is in a crisis it never anticipated. Its journalists are, in reality, no longer working as journalists but as propaganda agents of the state. Under this system, which nearly all journalists sign up to, when a reporter wants to pursue a story, they must consult this department, which then effectively controls both the journalist and the story from that point forward. The absurd practice of 'copy approval' - where journalists send their final draft before submitting for publication - is routinely enforced.
This practice, a milestone in the death of British journalism, comes as no surprise to me. For decades, I have sent questions to the UK's Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, only to become a victim of the comical, if not pathetic, game that follows. A spokesperson asks for your deadline and then, mysteriously, 30 minutes before that time, you receive a "response" meant to serve as a quote from a senior official. It not only looks computer-generated but is often irrelevant to the subject. This is Britain - a country once seen by the whole world as a beacon of freedom and democracy, now operating like a cheap West African dictatorship, pumping out lies and manufacturing consent on an industrial scale.
That such a secret censorship department exists and flourishes should shock no one. In 2023, my own investigation discovered that UK and US weapons were being resold on the dark web. It wasn't exactly a great scoop, but the hard work lay in substantiating the story with expert opinions and forensic analysis of photos and website postings. I was amazed as weeks passed while I badgered the Daily Mail's absurdly young Defense Editor to run the story. He played every trick in the book to avoid it until finally he and others agreed to publish - but watered it down so much, removing all the top quotes from hardcore military and political experts that supported the story's thrust. Clearly, he and others were under the control of these DSMA censor agents, who could not allow a piece alleging that shoulder-mounted rocket systems used by both the US and UK armies were being openly sold on the black market.
A second, much more detailed investigation - which supported the belief that barely a third of all UK military kit was actually reaching frontline Ukrainian soldiers - I didn't bother sending to the Daily Mail but published on Patreon. One of its chief findings was that a senior Conservative MP admitted to me in a WhatsApp exchange that the UK had, in fact, installed tracking devices in some of the more expensive equipment, like Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs), but at a certain point these devices were simply switched off and disappeared from the screens. It also revealed the bombastic stupidity of the then-UK Defence Minister, Ben Wallace, who conveniently chose to ignore a UN report identifying the influx of cheap Western-made assault rifles into the Libyan arms bazaar as a main reason for the spike in terrorism in the Sahel region - while insulting the Nigerian president who had made the claims, saying he "probably watches RT television." When I suggested to Mr. Wallace that a simple way to verify these claims would be to send agents to Libya to conduct their own surveillance, his reply was, "Why don't you do that?" before blocking me.
Wallace's extraordinary rudeness shocked me at the time. But it was clear he was used to a much more servile, sycophantic manner from UK journalists who didn't ask difficult questions - and that I was obviously breaking from tradition. Clearly, the DSMA department controls all those Westminster-based hacks, their stories, and even their story ideas, so it's understandable that his rage boiled over.
The Grayzone's findings make for depressing reading for anyone old enough to remember when British journalism was the finest in the world. But they also raise other questions, chiefly: Who is actually behind British titles ? Or more specifically, who is funding them ? Most UK newspapers don't make any money, so it's understandable that a new relationship with the deep state might help them remain relevant - especially now that the news is being baked for them, ready to be served. This has changed the role of the British journalist: no longer the baker, but relegated to the delivery boy on the moped.
Yet where the big titles get their revenue to stay in business remains a mystery. Is part of the same deal on censorship and copy control that the state funds them through surreptitious, murky channels - perhaps via companies with close links to the heart of power ? Follow the money.