Exclusive: Home Office employees refused to respond to our journalists

Home Office FOI
Support us and go ad-free

A freedom of information request to the Home Office has revealed a reluctance from press officers to respond to requests for comment from The Canary’s journalists. The information we’ve uncovered sets a dangerous precedent for freedom of the press. Further, it calls into question the Home Office’s standards of impartiality.

As part of our #ResistBigBrother series, we’ve had a lot of contact with the Home Office as we monitor racist counter-terror strategies. It’s standard practice for journalists to get in touch with whoever we’re writing about to give them a chance to respond.

However, we noticed that responses weren’t always forthcoming or were difficult to wrangle. So, we put in a freedom of information (FOI) request to see what we could uncover.

What did we find?

Much of the response was redacted, but we can clearly see a discussion about choosing not to respond to The Canary:

<redacted> 15:48:
given we don’t respond to the Canary

And another conversation which reads:

<redacted> 16:00:
<redacted> you can ignore the canary one

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

<redacted> 16:00:

just close it

<redacted> 16:00:

ah ok – do we not respond to the Canary?

<redacted> 16:00:

no

Here, the Home Office is evidently picking and choosing what it responds to. When we put this to the Home Office, a spokesperson told us:

This FOI request shows that we do respond to queries from The Canary but that there have been occasions where press officers have not done so.

Civil servants must act with impartiality and must not act in a way that unjustifiably favours or discriminates against particular news media. We have reminded our media officers of that obligation.

When we showed the Independent Media Association (IMA), a partner of The Canary and independent media cooperative, it told us:

These FOI requests clearly illustrate a partisan approach to information sharing, an approach that is utterly inappropriate and irresponsible for the Home Office to take.

Blacklisted?

Over the past year, independent journalists have been investigating whether or not the government treats certain news outlets differently. In November 2020, The Canary’s Emma Guy reported on an Open Democracy investigation which uncovered a possible ‘Orwellian’ unit that blacklists certain journalists:

the idea of a unit being designed and set up to screen journalists is incredibly troubling. By suppressing the freedom of the press, authorities run the risk of destabilising democracy and violating the public’s right to freedom of information.

Why would the government blacklist certain journalists?

The FOI response from the Home Office offers up an obvious answer to this question:

the canary will write terrible things about us regardless

It would appear that The Canary’s history of calling the Home Office to account has gained us a reputation that press officers aren’t thrilled with.

Why does this matter?

The Home Office is, by its own admission, obliged to respond to all news media seeking comment. We asked the IMA what it made of the FOI response as a whole, and it told us:

At a time when trust in institutions and indeed our democratic processes are at an all time low, we must recognise and reinvigorate the importance of transparency and accountability, particularly in our response to the plurality of media platforms in this country, many of which provide a vital public service in holding decision makers to account and making power more visible to citizens. Sadly this FOI request reveals a structural and complicit determination to achieve the polar opposite from the Home Office.

We certainly don’t expect the Home Office to be ecstatic about our coverage. But, we do expect an impartial and fair response to our requests for information and comment. The idea of a government department picking and choosing who it responds to is outrageous. It’s all the more outrageous that one would do so depending on which news outlets have criticised them.

Regardless, The Canary will continue to investigate and report injustices. Making power and injustice more visible to readers is exactly what we’ll continue to do.

Featured image via The Canary

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Freedom of Information is a sham anyway. The law around FOI and Subject Access Requests is structured to prevent any damaging questions being processed. Loopholes exist that allow any inconvenient questions to be classed as ‘vexatious’.

      The best thing really would be to coordinate a mass bombardment of FOI and SAR cases so that the responses could be published with analysis to show the deliberate anti-democratic techniques used. Then once the public have faced these shams themselves the fact that a body might stonewall a website becomes practically a banal detail, a mere symptom of an illusory would-be cornerstone of UK democracy.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.