To my dismay I find myself defending Boris Johnson in his actions as The Spectator editor.

In “Boris Johnson ‘outed’ journalist as an MI6 spy ‘for a laugh’” (more on the “laugh” and journalistic licence later) Harriet Agerholm and the Independent’s editor commit exactly the same “crime” that they accuse BJ of i.e. naming an alleged spy already reported in another publication – but with far less justification; and with distortion and unquestioned assertions thrown in for good measure (see below).

It also seems that our journalists are either regurgitating briefing papers or plagiarising other journalists reports without conducting any of their own verification or research. The content of Agerholm’s Boris Johnson ‘outed’ journalist as an MI6 spy ‘for a laugh’ (22 July?) is remarkably identical in both title and content to “Boris Johnson once outed MI6 spy ‘for a laugh’” by Adam Bienkov, politics.co.uk (19 July).

You can count on our Journalists to let you down

With few exceptions our media failed to properly analyse, critique, and inform in the lead up to the Iraq war. Now, with Syria, many reporters do nothing more than “re-tweet” UK/US Gov assertions and unsubstantiated claims by rebel factions. Our business journalists “write reports” that are word for word copies of company PR/briefings. It seems our newspapers are more interested articles of little substance aimed solely at destroying the reputation of people like Corbyn and McDonnell.

The Independent upholds this tradition of poor journalism in (re?) publishing a distorted article that serves no purpose other than character assassination. The Independent’s Agerholm also regurgitates, without question, fallacious claims that Journalists lives have been put at risk (more below).

What exactly did Johnson do?

As editor of the Spectator he allowed a columnist to write a dismissive review of a book by former British spy Tomlinson that was being distributed by a Russian publisher.  The review stated the book was based on Tomlinson’s short MI6 career, gossip and the occasional piece of personal mischief. BJ’s crime was that the review included an example of this mischief:

“The former Spectator editor Dominic Lawson is for some reason singled out for his unexceptional act in providing a travelling MI6 agent with journalistic cover in the form of a letter commissioning him to write an article. Lawson may also be puzzled to discover that, according to Tomlinson, his code name inside MI6 was `Smallbrow’.”

The spy who never was – or never let facts get in the way of a story:

The Independent refers to outing of a spy – the Spectator did not call or describe Lawson as a spy, it merely stated that the reviewed book claimed that he provided a spy with journalist credentials.

If anyone is (falsely) outing him it is the Independent via the implication in its headline.

Outed MI6 spy ‘for a laugh’:

  • the review which names Lawson was written by Julian Manyon NOT Johnson
  • The Spectator and the Independent have done the same thing – quote from another source already in the public domain.
  • The Spectator/Johnson did not claim Lawson was a spy.
  • Manyon simply mentioned that the book claims MI6 referred to Lawson by the less than complementary codename of “smallbrow”. This amusing anecdote at the expense of an establishment figure lightens an otherwise weighty review.
  • The Independent’s headline uses Lawson’s comment with journalistic licence:

    “You can imagine how angry I was. I rang him up, but there was just this sense of ‘Never mind, Dommers, I just did it for a laugh’“.

    None of us were party to the conversation, but valid justification of using an amusing anecdote already in the public domain to lighten the article could be simplistically sensed/interpreted by an angry (his words) Lawson as “done for a laugh”.

Endangering Journalists:

The Independent quotes Lawson

“And apart from anything else, if you’re running a newspaper with foreign correspondents in strange parts of the world, as I was then, it’s potentially a physical threat to them if it’s believed that they’re working for British intelligence.”

The Spectator refers to the book’s “revelation” of Lawson’s alleged action as unexceptional i.e. it is common knowledge that this activity happens. Even ordinary plebs like me with an interest in current affairs are aware that: in the same way Embassies military attaché means spy, many countries have some spies acting as journalists, and some journalists acting as spies. This was even discussed in class when I was at school in the late 70’s!!! If Lawson and Agerholm believe that what was discussed by school kids is news to foreign powers then they shouldn’t be journalists.

There are numerous reports on this subject. In the 1960’s the Russians claimed editors and journo’s of the BBC and our major papers were working with MI6. This was denied at the time but espionage historians now claim the documentary evidence was genuine and likely given to the Russians by George Blake. Again, any journalist worth their salt should be aware of this.

Among our enemies the only people to whom this might still be news will be small cells of under educated terrorists who were in nappies pre 9/11 when The Spectator review was published.

So if anyone is endangering security it is the Independent in giving this issue prominence 15 years later when threats of terrorism are much greater, simply to have a go at Johnson.