> > It says the UK media largely ignored the Snowden leaks due to a D-Notice
> The Guardian might have been "crucified" for their reporting, but they did report on it.
a few things;
1) "largely ignored" does not mean universally ignored, 1 outlet reporting on it does not mean that the "large majority" of british media didn't ignore the leaks.
2) Guardian didn't ignore the d-notice either, they made a choice to die on that hill, and they were dragged through the coals for it. D-Notices' are supposedly voluntary, otherwise there would be more outrage.
3) this serves as a warning to the other outlets.
4) the guardian was already in reporting and disseminating the contents directly with Snowden before the d-notice was issued.
So you agree that saying the UK media largely ignored the Snowden story is incorrect? As mentioned The Guardian was one of the principle outlets of the disclosures led by Ewen MacAskill.
The Guardian ignored the D-Notices and survives to this day - both facts undermine the point of the article that the system breaks independent British journalism.
This article stinks, is there any way to downvote it any further?
Their HQ was stormed by police along with forced compliance of the destruction of information:
https://www.techdirt.com/2013/08/19/uk-govt-forces-guardian-...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden...
That said; in theory D-Notice's are voluntary, but non-compliance is vaguely threatened with "increased scrutiny".
D-Notices themselves are not exactly secret; they even get a mention in the movie V For Vendetta.