The Laughing Wolf

The Sting Was Blown?

According to this article found courtesy of Professor Reynolds, a report by the BBC prevented law enforcement from "flipping" the British arms dealer just arrested. While it would be easy to simply blister the Beeb for yet one more effort to aid terrorist and dictators, I think that would be wrong in this case

No, it is not the end of the world with my defending the Beeb. I do think we need to look at two separate things here and address both, for they have strong implications for both a free press and a successful fight in the war on terror.

The fact that law enforcement wanted to flip this guy means that many things about this case suddenly make sense. This was an elaborate sting operation with unprecedented cooperation. While Russia does have a "dog in the hunt" because of its ongoing war in Chechnya, taking part so fully in a sting of this nature also could hurt some of their open, gray, and black arms sales that bring in a lot of hard currency. This is going to particularly affect the gray, though I doubt that the government will officially mourn anything that hurts the pure black. There clearly has to be more to this case than was reported to get this level of cooperation.

An attempt to flip and create a mole makes good sense. The person has little choice, has good to perfect cover, and can move in circles where law enforcement is going to have difficulty.

So now we get to the meat of the matter: what happened to blow this. On the surface, if the report(s) are true, then it was the Beeb deciding to run an exclusive story. Once the report was out, the flip could not be done. Therefore, they had to cut the operation short and just go with the setup.

There will be hue and cry against the BBC over this. Yet, what the BBC did is strictly in keeping with the cannons of journalism, especially as practiced before 9-11. The mindset with many in journalism and reporting is that you go with the exclusive, you get the story out no matter the consequences. Indeed, consideration of the consequences is not an option for many because doing so means that the story might not run and worse harms could result. This is particularly true within the mindset of those who still see government, especially under republican/opposition control, as the true threat.

My own personal take has been and still is that one must consider the consequences and that there are indeed higher considerations that also must be taken into account. National security and protection of those who serve are just two of those, but to consider them puts a reporter beyond the pale according to many in the profession.

And there can be some merit to what they say. Yes, there can be consequences to running a story, but one does have to consider the greater good. Will running a story cause small-scale harm (i.e. the deaths of a few people) but prevent large-scale harm (i.e. some form of totalitarianism, loss of major freedoms, etc.)? This is a legitimate issue, and not too different in the basics from those faced by almost any military commander. The problem often lies, in my opinion, with the political bias of the reporter and organization, which shapes what they see as the greater threat.

After 9-11, there can be no doubt as to the greater threat. We face an enemy that wants our complete and utter destruction. Freedom of any sort is an anathema to them, and they have no respect for any of our institutions. Many in the media have failed to see this, and while I agree that we need to be cautious lest we destroy our freedoms for them, it is clear to me who the true enemy is right now.

Yet, many in the media don't see this and operate solely on the basis of domestic political agendas and outmoded worldviews. They get a tip and run with it as they always would have done, without parsing the situation on the basis of reality. Getting the tip and running with it would not have the same consequences pre-9-11 as it does now. This, however, has not sunk into the greater consciousness of The Media. If you want to see this for yourself, a number of media organizations, from NASW on up, have logs of their e-mail chat lists that are open to public viewing. Go read them and you will get a good sense for how things stand.

But it is not fair to completely blame the media on this. There is also the matter of the leak from law enforcement. Leaks are a part of the game and will always be a part of the game. Leaks are often done deliberately, as a part of policy on the part of a given administration. It is a way of getting information out, and sending messages, without doing so in an official manner. Sometimes it is simply a way to recruiting a reporter by making sure they get a juicy story. Other times, it is the only way to expose a serious problem that truly does need to see the light of day. Finally, it is a great way to get attention and make yourself seem important.

I have the suspicion that the latter may be the case here. Just as The Media does not get the new circumstances, it is clear that many in law enforcement don't either. They are still operating in a pre-9-11 mode that concentrates on turf wars, power expansion, political gain, and all those other fun and wonderful things that drive differing organizations. In some cases, leaks like this have happened to deliberately blow the work of another organization, to make them look bad and to give some form of advantage to another.

I neither know nor care the reasons for this leak, if indeed it truly did occur. What matters is that it blew what could have been a very successful operation to penetrate a world that we desperately need to enter and eliminate. Therefore, if it did take place, it was in direct aid and comfort of the enemy, and could and possibly should be viewed as treason. If we go after anyone here, it should be the source of the leak, not the people who ran with it.

Yes, the Beeb did, in my opinion, act irresponsibly if these reports are true. In this day and age, I would hope that any reporter dealing with a story like this will stop, think, and act as a responsible individual. I would hope that the organization they work for would as well, but I fear that in many bastions of The Media, stuck in a pre-9-11 mindset, this is impossible.

The real problem in this case, however, lies in the source of the leak. That leak is rooted in a tradition that has as many problems as that of The Media. It is far worse in that the source of the leak swore to serve and protect. Unless there is something else deep behind the scenes that has not yet come out, something truly evil, then there is no justification for what was done. This is where we need to concentrate, not on a thoroughly discredited media organization, but on a leak who would so casually break their oath and risk not just one operation, but the safety of hundreds or even thousands of lives.

Look for the leak, and condemn them. Look at the BBC, and mourn what was once a proud media organization.

-30-