Intelligence’s relationship with publicity, especially the media, has gone through a multitude of phases in the past century. Even when tensions have prevailed, the relationship has had its range of benefits, at least in open and democratic societies. However, the intelligence-media relationship faces new contemporary challenges. The media-sphere is becoming more fragmented as traditional media houses are challenged by the content flows of social media and a wide variety of blogs. Additionally, the trust in so-called mainstream media is being increasingly questioned by a multitude of actors. The phenomena have their effects also on the intelligence-media relationship. Understanding the nature of the relationship is paramount for both actors, and for the information-seeking public as well.
In the 1900s, especially in newspaper-rich Britain, the intelligence-media relationship was often full of tensions when media, under a dominant oversight paradigm, sought to reveal scandals and wrongdoings of the intelligence community (IC). After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, intelligence communities took a more collaborative approach towards the media, albeit very cautiously. However, incidents such as the misuse of intelligence in the preparations for the 2003 Iraq War, led to new tensions in the relationship. Media’s readiness to discuss intelligence matters has progressed over time changing the relationship as well. Additionally, the media-driven public discourses have also influenced changes in oversight mechanisms and accountability within the IC. Media’s own oversight or self-control over what to publish is also a notable aspect of the relationship. More thorough media coverage and interaction with the community can be seen as a shift to “legitimacy through regulated publicity” paradigm.
Conforming to the new paradigm, the mutually shared transparency gives legitimacy embraced by the IC and, additionally, accountability as well. In theory, the community needs publicity and transparency for legitimacy derived from public understanding. The government, for its part, seeks to regulate and control the publicity concerning the ”Secret State”. In addition to other motives, media uses the publicity to further public knowledge and understanding of what, in the end, remains partially secret and unknown. This three-way balancing act works at best to keep intelligence failures or abuses from becoming existential threats to society. But only, if the three are not entangled in a hostile confrontation but interacting through understanding of mutual benefits.
The future trends of the dynamic intelligence-media relationship have two key variables: the nature of publicity and the IC’s reaction to it. The media’s role may range from offering constructive criticism to focusing on sensational events and failures. Similarly, the communities may choose to become more open, engaging in public discourse, or they may opt for increased secrecy and withdrawal.
In the context of modern governance, complete secrecy within the IC seems unlikely due to the emphasis on transparency. A closed-off community with minimal interaction and questioning media could lead to a precarious standoff. Both parties would probably face frustration rather than benefits. The most probable trajectory for the media-intelligence relationship is one of moderate progress. The media will maintain their slightly skeptical stance, while the IC will gradually assume a more active role in public discussions. Although certain aspects of intelligence operations will always remain classified, extensive coverage of intelligence-related matters is likely to persist. Declassification and publishing of intelligence and intelligence assessments before and after Russia’s attack on Ukraine is an example of contemporary publicity for intelligence.
The digital age has ushered in an era of unprecedented amount of available information. With the rise of social media, citizen journalism, and alternative news sources, distinguishing facts from fiction has become a daunting task. Multitude of voices, with a multitude of objectives, challenge the information available to people on a constant basis. Maintaining public trust in both intelligence agencies and the media is paramount to the success of both actors. Recent controversies, ranging from intelligence failures to allegations of media bias, have eroded this trust. Rebuilding and sustaining faith in these institutions will require a concerted effort to enhance transparency, accountability, and integrity in their operations. The 2020s promise to be a pivotal period for the relationship between intelligence communities and the media. As they confront a rapidly evolving information landscape, while also navigating emerging technologies and geopolitical uncertainties, their collaboration will be indispensable.
Intelligence communities need to come out and tell their story. Otherwise, someone else will do it.
Finnish Defence Forces
Finland
