How Britain Censors Journalists

Introduction to Britain's Secret Censorship Regime

The United Kingdom maintains a secret censorship regime, primarily operated through the Defence and Security Media Advisory (DSMA) Committee.

This regime is a uniquely British system, characterised as both very gentlemanly and extremely dishonest. It functions as a devastatingly effective way of censoring the British media without state dictat.

The DSMA committee issues D-notices, which stand for Do Not Publish notices, and provides advice to journalists regarding stories related to national security. The concept of national security used by the committee is deliberately vague and nebulous, meaning only what the British government desires it to mean.

The Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee (DSMA)

The DSMA committee is an executive body run by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). It is headquartered within the Ministry of Defence, staffed by MoD employees, and financially supported by the MoD. Despite its complete dependence on the MoD, the DSMA committee claims to be independent. This declaration of independence makes the committee immune from Freedom of Information requests.

The efficacy of the system is high; the committee boasts a success rate of over 90% in securing compliance from journalists. The system's effectiveness in controlling the flow of information is considered dangerous to the state when publications occur overseas, particularly through outlets that do not follow the supposedly voluntary guidelines. When DSMA advice is ignored, it tends to be the work of extreme non-mainstream media organisations.

The effectiveness of this British platform has drawn international interest. In late 2022 AD, high-level discussions were held between committee representatives and the Australian government, which was interested in emulating the D-notice system.

The Operation of D-Notices

The DSMA committee issues D-notices, instructing outlets not to publish certain material, and also provides advice on national security matters. For instance, following reports on the Snowden Leaks, the DSMA committee wrote to editors and journalists at every major news outlet and newspaper, very politely asking them to seek advice before reporting on the story.

This advice typically meant reporters should not say anything about the story. The committee’s involvement in controlling media reports on national security matters has included editing journalists’ reports before they are published.

The DSMA committee’s ability to influence media coverage has been demonstrated repeatedly concerning topics such as Wikileaks releases. Following DSMA intervention regarding the Snowden leaks, The Guardian was the sole British newspaper to report on the matter, while the rest of the British media ignored it.

A log of requests received by the committee between May 2011 and May 2014 revealed that the committee sought to distort or outright bury stories across a wide range of topics. These suppressed topics included child sex abuse carried out by prominent judicial, political, and law enforcement figures; an elected Member of Parliament frequenting a brothel; the involvement of British special forces in Syria; and coordination with the CIA regarding torture and extraordinary rendition.

Consequences and the Perceived Voluntary Nature

Journalists are theoretically free to ignore the advice issued by the DSMA committee. Furthermore, there are theoretically no legal repercussions for failing to comply. However, there exist well-understood consequences for non-compliance with the DSMA. These consequences may range from journalists being excluded from briefings, losing access to exclusives and interviews, or not receiving responses for comment on stories. Non-compliance can also extend to the risk of prosecution under the Official Secrets Act or the National Security Act, which contains insanely sweeping terms regarding what journalists and social media users can and cannot publish.

Notable Interventions: High-Profile Cases

The DSMA committee has intervened in reporting on numerous significant events, including those related to the security services and British foreign policy. The content the committee has been consulted about has, at times, been described as the most sensitive the committee had ever seen.

#### Gareth Williams

Gareth Williams, a crack codebreaker from GCHQ seconded to MI6, died in August 2010 in bizarre circumstances. He was found dead in a central London apartment owned by MI6. His body was discovered in a zipped-up, padlocked bag in the bathtub.

The coroner ruled his death unnatural and likely criminally mediated. Police were only informed 10 days after his death, despite his sensitive position. When authorities entered the flat, they found the heating had been turned up, presumably to destroy forensic evidence.

Detectives investigating the matter were blocked from interviewing any personnel at GCHQ or MI6 about Williams and were prevented from reviewing any employment documents. The DSMA log lists a large number of requests related explicitly to the coroner’s inquest into Williams’ death.

That inquest concluded that MI6 involvement in Gareth Williams’ death was a legitimate line of inquiry that authorities had not satisfactorily explored. Media coverage surrounding the incident initially exhibited a kind of mania that promptly vanished, a cessation no doubt due to DSMA intervention.

#### Porton Down Research

There are references to numerous requests for advice and demands that journalists refrain from reporting on matters related to Porton Down, the leading research centre in the UK for chemical and biological warfare. The DSMA log specifically mentioned Porton Down victims. Porton Down has admitted on its own website that it conducted countless highly unethical human experiments, including spraying a nerve agent on an individual, which resulted in death. The facility also carried out MK Ultra-style mind control experiments, dosing unwitting British soldiers with LSD.

#### The Death of Princess Diana

The DSMA committee actively intervened regarding suggestions of intelligence agency involvement in the death of Princess Diana in August 1997. Between May and November 2013, there was a total of 85 requests from the DSMA committee related to intelligence agency involvement in her death. An MI6 operative named Nicholas Langman was posted to Paris shortly before Princess Diana’s death, and immediately following her death, he managed information operations aimed at countering suggestions of British intelligence involvement.

#### The Death of James the Measurer

The death of James the Measurer, the White Helmets’ founder, in late 2019 was likely subject to DSMA advice. Following his death, a phenomenon known in British media as a reverse ferret occurred. Initially, a number of mainstream sources suggested Russia was behind the death. Subsequently, those same sources, including a BBC veteran, reversed their claims, asserting that the death was a suicide and that no questions remained about the incident.

The DSMA system acts as a controlling mechanism, ensuring that certain narratives—particularly those involving intelligence or security services—are either kept out of the media entirely or heavily influenced in how they are reported.

This control relies heavily on the subservience of journalists in Britain and their willingness to take orders from the Ministry of Defence and the security and intelligence services. The D-notice system operates like an invisible fence; while journalists are physically capable of crossing it, the implicit professional and legal threats surrounding it ensure compliance, maintaining a boundary without the overt use of force.