They are probably hacked or phished or otherwise obtained by Russia or another adversary. Sometimes things can be doctored too. Not always easy to tell.
https://twitter.com/danmyg/status/1363428835291709440
Sometimes hacks can be material that puts actual operations or people at risk. Some would argue that publishing on documents that have been obtained this way particularly if not careful with reporting/checking is helping foreign propagandists do their job.
Giving them oxygen etc... but once it is in the public domain I think there is a decent argument that it really needs good well informed interpretation. Because otherwise it will be used to polarise especially if only ill informed careless and highly ideological sites report it.
If the only outlets reporting on something are RT or other foreign propaganda that’s not good - such outlets do not have UK citizens interests in mind when reporting and are not public interest journalism.
And audiences will go there to learn about such operations if there is nowhere else to go. Outlets that cannot be trusted.. That do not put the material in a proper context.
It also requires highly specialised knowledge to do it properly and legal resources small outlets struggle. And outlets like @declassifiedUK have experienced blacklisting and other problems or foia refusals from the MOD.
When they are reporting on the military in even a very traditional way. Plus the audience may be fairly niche... there may be events directly impacting citizens and big outlets may be more focused on the pandemic, domestic pol or national security stories focused on adversaries.
Or Prince Harry 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️ Because that drives viewers...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
