5 ms·

> These individuals had also been quoted, featured, or otherwise used as commentators in UK media coverage of defence, conflict, or national security issues. I

> These individuals had also been quoted, featured, or otherwise used as commentators in UK media coverage of defence, conflict, or national security issues. If they are promoting defence spending or plugging their employers products that's bad, but using their experience to comment on the Iran war or Ukraine, or Russian/Chinese Spy networks doesn't seem that bad?

JdeBP 5mo ago
In 17 of the 19 detailed instances, it is stated that they are promoting increases in budgets and spending. The two others are reported as speaking with different conflicts of interest.
- dgroshev 5mo ago
  "People who have seen the state of the military first hand are saying that we need to fund the military" is not really shocking or sinister.
  - defrost 5mo ago
    It's not the message spoken that is at issue here, it is the lack of disclosure of the connection of "the expert" to those that benefit (or suffer) from the message.
    - dgroshev 5mo ago
      Do you expect the same standard to be applied to the NHS? "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago"
      - defrost 5mo ago
        I expect this: > "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago" from any media outlet quoting that "expert", yes. I'd also like the circumstances of their departure to be mentioned, should that be relevant to the claims. I expect it as such things are also expected by the press council of the country I'm in, even though it can be an uphill battle getting such compliance.
      - JdeBP 5mo ago
        A correct analogue would be 'The expert stating that more should be spent on treatment X was employed in the NHS five years ago and currently runs/directs/consults for a business selling supplies for treatment X.'
  - SturgeonsLaw 5mo ago
    It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.
    - dgroshev 5mo ago
      This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
      - ajsnigrutin 5mo ago
        It's the UK we're talking about here. To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist. At some point you have to ask, is it really for defense, if you're bombing someone a quarter of a planet away? Are you really protecting your people at home by doing that, and are they happy their money is being spent for that instead of eg. healthcare, education, etc.?
        dgroshev 5mo ago
        You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point. But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?
        chadgpt3 5mo ago
        Are you arguing the UK involvement in Bosnia was to defend the UK?
        ajsnigrutin 5mo ago
        I mean... if you want to go to current times and politicaly sensitive topics, UK is defending the genocide of gazans and the attacks on iran right now by protecting israeli airspace. So yeah, genocide seems to not be a problem for the UK. Again, nothing to do with defending the british people. In a democracy, any military action (except fighting pack when directly attacked) should start with a referendum to see if people actually want to pay for that. (it also makes it less problematic for the other side to destroy the infrastructure when fighting back, since it's not just some smiling Tony choosing to attack then, but the people too).
- helsinkiandrew 5mo ago
  Does it say that in the full report somewhere else? I can't find that in the text. I think most people would be surprised if ex senior military Personnel didn't think military spending should be increased.
  - cucumber3732842 5mo ago
    >I think most people would be surprised if ex senior military Personnel didn't think military spending should be increased. When all you know is a hammer...
    - jimjohnny123 5mo ago
      Today, the UK's Navy for example is so diminished due to cuts by successive governments, that it would struggle to defend even Britain's shores. See for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBe_36XfZb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBe_36XfZb4 UK military capability is not what perhaps persists in some people's imaginations, even compared to say 20 years ago. Britain does need to increase military spending.
RobotToaster 5mo ago
There's lots of indirect ways to promote "defence" spending, such as promoting more involvement in a conflict.
rigonkulous 5mo ago
In the context of Julian Assanges' treatment by UK media, and his subsequent disassembly at Belmarsh, who cares what they have to say about Russia or China.
- TiredOfLife 5mo ago
  In the context of Assange turning out to be russian mouthpiece. Well deserved.
  - rigonkulous 5mo ago
    This justification for state violence is false.
advisedwang 5mo ago
I think it should always be disclosed. Even when they aren't explicitly advocating for a direct benefit to their company, their overall analysis is colored by their interests. The defense industry is going to amp up risks of an aggressor, downplay the risk of appearing to be aggressive, downplay non-military foreign policy strategies etc. Allow the defense industry to influence how we think about foreign events is certainly going to influence how we think about policy and spending.

JdeBP 5mo ago

In 17 of the 19 detailed instances, it is stated that they are promoting increases in budgets and spending. The two others are reported as speaking with different conflicts of interest.

dgroshev 5mo ago
"People who have seen the state of the military first hand are saying that we need to fund the military" is not really shocking or sinister.
- defrost 5mo ago
  It's not the message spoken that is at issue here, it is the lack of disclosure of the connection of "the expert" to those that benefit (or suffer) from the message.
  - dgroshev 5mo ago
    Do you expect the same standard to be applied to the NHS? "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago"
    - defrost 5mo ago
      I expect this: > "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago" from any media outlet quoting that "expert", yes. I'd also like the circumstances of their departure to be mentioned, should that be relevant to the claims. I expect it as such things are also expected by the press council of the country I'm in, even though it can be an uphill battle getting such compliance.
    - JdeBP 5mo ago
      A correct analogue would be 'The expert stating that more should be spent on treatment X was employed in the NHS five years ago and currently runs/directs/consults for a business selling supplies for treatment X.'
- SturgeonsLaw 5mo ago
  It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.
  - dgroshev 5mo ago
    This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
    - ajsnigrutin 5mo ago
      It's the UK we're talking about here. To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist. At some point you have to ask, is it really for defense, if you're bombing someone a quarter of a planet away? Are you really protecting your people at home by doing that, and are they happy their money is being spent for that instead of eg. healthcare, education, etc.?
      - dgroshev 5mo ago
        You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point. But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?
        chadgpt3 5mo ago
        Are you arguing the UK involvement in Bosnia was to defend the UK?
        ajsnigrutin 5mo ago
        I mean... if you want to go to current times and politicaly sensitive topics, UK is defending the genocide of gazans and the attacks on iran right now by protecting israeli airspace. So yeah, genocide seems to not be a problem for the UK. Again, nothing to do with defending the british people. In a democracy, any military action (except fighting pack when directly attacked) should start with a referendum to see if people actually want to pay for that. (it also makes it less problematic for the other side to destroy the infrastructure when fighting back, since it's not just some smiling Tony choosing to attack then, but the people too).
helsinkiandrew 5mo ago
Does it say that in the full report somewhere else? I can't find that in the text. I think most people would be surprised if ex senior military Personnel didn't think military spending should be increased.
- cucumber3732842 5mo ago
  >I think most people would be surprised if ex senior military Personnel didn't think military spending should be increased. When all you know is a hammer...
  - jimjohnny123 5mo ago
    Today, the UK's Navy for example is so diminished due to cuts by successive governments, that it would struggle to defend even Britain's shores. See for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBe_36XfZb4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBe_36XfZb4 UK military capability is not what perhaps persists in some people's imaginations, even compared to say 20 years ago. Britain does need to increase military spending.

RobotToaster 5mo ago

There's lots of indirect ways to promote "defence" spending, such as promoting more involvement in a conflict.

rigonkulous 5mo ago

In the context of Julian Assanges' treatment by UK media, and his subsequent disassembly at Belmarsh, who cares what they have to say about Russia or China.

TiredOfLife 5mo ago
In the context of Assange turning out to be russian mouthpiece. Well deserved.
- rigonkulous 5mo ago
  This justification for state violence is false.

advisedwang 5mo ago

I think it should always be disclosed. Even when they aren't explicitly advocating for a direct benefit to their company, their overall analysis is colored by their interests. The defense industry is going to amp up risks of an aggressor, downplay the risk of appearing to be aggressive, downplay non-military foreign policy strategies etc. Allow the defense industry to influence how we think about foreign events is certainly going to influence how we think about policy and spending.