The London Times got a guided tour of a the once-secret UK intelligence headquarters and left behind their journalistic integrity. They are being used to disseminate propaganda ahead of the introduction of draconian surveillance legislation. "Snowden did enormous damage", "tiny bit of data", "only metadata", etc.<p>Letting in a journalist is an astute move on behalf of GCHQ and the government, but, in this instance, they have accidentally chosen a stenographer instead. The absence of a single challenging question regarding the dangers of mass-surveillance is embarrassing.
Time and time again we find "journalists" (The Times has been in the pocket of the intel world for decades), academics and politicians who are cleverly seduced by getting a glimpse of the inside of the intelligence, special forces, police world etc. Too often the people charged with overseeing them allow themselves to feel intimidated by people in uniform or in intelligence. So called "Defence," "Crime" journalists etc get lazy and allow themselves to be feed like a child from the press offices of various organisations. "Sources say," "insiders say" basically becomes a form of grovelling verbatim printing of press releases and spin.<p>I really wish they would open their eyes and ask difficult questions (it's generally better for their careers in the long run). Or better yet, if they are afraid ask the public and experts for specific questions to put to them. When I worked in the UK Parliament, I always found it interesting that the best questions, comments and observations about these worlds came from the people who were formerly in them - e.g MPs/Lords who used to be intel or military. They were generally much more inclined to not swallow the crap pushed out by the agencies and instead ask the difficult questions - as it was a lot harder for the wool to be pulled over their eyes. Esp on issues like 90 day detention, mandatory ID cards, government surveillance powers.