NewsMine — war-on-terror — iraq — pre-invasion — un-spying — Viewing Item

Word change conspiracies { March 9 2003 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,910420,00.html http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,910420,00.html Comment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our spy story spelt conspiracy to some Stephen Pritchard Sunday March 9, 2003 The Observer The everyday use of a piece of simple computer technology placed this newspaper at the centre of a storm last week, providing the twitchy global community of conspiracy theorists with enough material for a whole conference and prompting a record number of visits to our website. Our exclusive front-page lead reported that a secret document, leaked to us, showed that the US administration was conducting a secret surveillance campaign against United Nations Security Council delegates in its battle to win votes in favour of war on Iraq. The memorandum, written by a top official at the National Security Agency (NSA), gave orders to agents to step up surveillance on delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria, Guinea and Pakistan. Trouble began when we reproduced part of the memo on the front page and the full document on our website. In preparing the story, the memo had been typed into our computer system and a spell check run against it, which changed the American spellings of 'favorable', 'emphasize', 'recognize' to UK-style 'favourable', 'emphasise and 'recognise'. The date on the document was also changed from the US style 2003/01/31 to 31/01/2003. The story drew a swift and furious reaction from the US. 'Any paper that would change date, spelling and content then call a document authentic isn't worth fishwrap. Your paper, politics, and reporting are contemptible...' 'Your paper is full of baloney. You have never gotten hold of secret emails from our NSA and you never will. All of you Europeans seem afraid of a measly little dictator. Get some balls about yourselves. Stand up and face the big bully...' By 3am on Sunday, only hours after the paper appeared, the Drudge Report, the US website which shot to fame when it broke the Monica Lewinsky scandal, was alleging that The Observer had smeared the US government. A reader wrote: 'I think The Observer has done itself a major disservice by automatically changing the spellings used - unless, of course, the memo has been fabricated, as Drudge certainly implies. I don't believe you did; in the current climate of paranoia and knee-jerk patriotic zeal abroad in the US, however, such an accusation will find ready believers.' How true. The American spellings were restored on our website, with an explanation, but conspiracy theorists were not satisifed. 'You guys have the best comedy running! You try to defend your obvious fairytale by saying you had to translate a supposed NSA memo so the British populace would understand it? Face it - you fabricated a story.' After consulting reporters, our web editor emailed Drudge, putting the record straight on the spelling and telling him that the paper had spent three weeks verifying the document and stood by the story. Drudge changed his piece to read: 'Spelling alterations and typographical slip-ups notwithstanding, editors of The Observer are standing tough behind the paper's investigation.' www.observer.co.uk recorded 964,373 page impressions on Sunday and another 800,000 over the next three days. This was a record. Papers from Chile to Spain, Australia to Canada picked up on the story after seeing all the attention on the web. 'What this again shows is just how quickly the web disseminates information around the world,' says our website editor. 'Immediately we publish something, it is picked up and commented on in any number of different forums.' Just a decade ago, to know how an issue was being covered in different places around the world would have been very difficult for somebody who was not a foreign correspondent or media expert. Now, readers can instantly compare and contrast coverage at home with howa story is being covered in Britain or Europe, creating a global marketplace for ideas, news - and, unfortunately, misunderstandings. Write to Stephen Pritchard, Readers' Editor, The Observer, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER, tel 0207-713 4656 Mon-Fri, fax 0207-713 4279 or email reader@observer.co.uk More reaction to the UN espionage story online at www.observer.co.uk/readerseditor

Britain spied on un allies over vote { February 8 2004 } British leaked nsa memo { March 11 2003 } Dirty tricks on un { March 2 2003 } Dirty tricks spying un { March 2 2003 } Spying report no shock { March 4 2003 } Un spying nsa document { March 2 2003 } Word change conspiracies { March 9 2003 } Files Listed: 7

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.