How do we distinguish what is news from what is just rotten speech? We are constantly bombarded by information. At times it is overwhelming and it may be difficult to discern what is true and valuable news reporting from a well disguised story with an ulterior motive. In order to make sense of the news we consume, we should always question the journalistic values of the newspapers and broadcasters we are following, especially when these organisations appear to have the same agenda as our government.

The Sunday Times published a very interesting story yesterday behind a pay-wall, but it has also been reproduced here. The story is interesting because of its timing and the language utilised, most importantly, the journalists involved are making some very serious remarks, which we are supposed to accept on face value because they lack attribution.

The story claims that the Russian and Chinese governments have secured some of the encrypted files (one million, to be precise) that Snowden had taken from the NSA, thus endangering the lives of MI6 agents. It even goes as far as to suggest that Snowden himself may have given the files to Putin’s officials in order to secure asylum in Russia. The article quotes several officials on how Snowden  paradoxically “had blood on his hands” while there was “no evidence of anyone being harmed.”

The language throughout the paragraphs is fairly loaded, the headline of the piece is “British spies betrayed to Russians and Chinese,” which already tells the reader that someone has betrayed their country, sold it for personal gain (The headline also reveals which side of the debate the writers fall on) It is also accompanied by a picture composed of Putin looking rather friendly (as friendly as Putin can look) towards his newly adopted buddy, Snowden.

The claims that the Russian and Chinese governments had secured the cache of files were made by an anonymous government source, a “senior Downing Street source,” according to the paper. This is truly peculiar. Why are they anonymous? If this is a matter of security and they are talking on behalf of the government then a reliable source would offer the claims some legitimacy. Anonymity exists to protect sources that may be in danger (normally from an authoritarian regime) but the government needs no protection or anonymity from itself. It is in the interest of transparency that these sources emerge.

At a time where mass surveillance methods are being questioned, following the Anderson’s Report on Surveillance, it seems rather convenient for advocates of surveillance and data collection that Snowden, the champion of digital privacy, sold us to the Russian and Chinese governments. This sounds like something that would make Theresa May salivate while she plots how to tighten her grasp “Isn’t this timing perfect?” she’ll whisper to herself, “now that Putin knows all our secrets and our spies are in danger surely everyone will comply with us and hand over their rights. More importantly, now that Snowden’s role as the ultimate Russian/Chinese double agent has been revealed surely no one will stand up to defend him!” Somehow we are expected to believe that this is what is happening, that only a week after Anderson’s report, four weeks after the US finding some of the practices by NSA unconstitutional, our British spies are being betrayed thus making us more vulnerable to terrorism, to Russia and in need of even more surveillance.

What the Sunday Times did yesterday was not news reporting. Until they credit their sources and show compelling evidence, what they are really doing is helping the Government set the narrative on the ongoing debate of privacy, it’s propaganda, dangerous propaganda.

For a better idea on how poorly sourced the story is, just look at this CNN interview with Tom Harper, one of the writers of the story.