As I understand it, the United Kingdom does not have shield laws, nor does the European Union have any analogous binding legislation. This would mean that there

As I understand it, the United Kingdom does not have shield laws, nor does the European Union have any analogous binding legislation. This would mean that there is no such thing, in the United Kingdom, as "a reporter", or "a journalist", or etc. The closest that they might have are the employees of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which is royally chartered. I bring this up mostly because you seem to have some sort of distinction in your mind about whether some people are true journalists or not, but journalism is not a property of people. Journalism is an action and a subculture. The reason for legally distinguishing journalism and those who routinely practice it is to protect them from retaliation and the pressures of the powerful. If the UK were to have shield laws, then we would need to ensure that Murray's actions are congruent with the requirements of said law before we could say that he deserves said law's protection; however, since the UK appears to have no such law, we as a society ought to offer protection to anybody who acts like a journalist in the public interest. Finally, the headline is not false based on your claim! The headline is "Craig Murray Defence Fund Launched", and indeed it seems that Murray's got a legal defense fund with some cash in it. Perhaps you object to the idea that independent journalists should be allowed to solicit funds for legal defense, but that does not falsify the headline. Oh, and on the gripping hand, it is reprehensible for a government to conduct justice in the matter so far documented. Even if Murray were both subject to, and failing to meet the letter of, some hypothetical shield law, nonetheless we should absolutely be paying attention to this situation and pressuring the UK to be more transparent.