
Corporate Media Gatekeepers Protect Western 1% from Panama Leak - kushti
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/corporate-media-gatekeepers-protect-western-1-from-panama-leak/
======
hendersoon
It's only day 1, and the ICIJ has said they have at least 14 days of "major
revelations" mapped out in advance.

I expect we'll be seeing stories from the Panama Papers for months to come,
spaced out for maximum impact, similarly to Snowden's leaks.

If a month goes by and not a single story is contrary to american corporate
interests, the author's position may be reasonably supportable. But day 1? Not
a chance. They went for the most immediate impact-- two CURRENT heads of
state.

~~~
r3bl
I can guarantee you at least two more heads of states tomorrow (European
time): Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan.

~~~
hendersoon
Note to readers: From a post in the other Pentagon Papers thread on HN, r3bl
claims to be a web dev at one of the sites reporting on these leaks, ICIJ,
Guardian, BBC, etc. So he isn't guessing!

~~~
r3bl
Best proof I can provide at the moment:
[https://tech.occrp.org/about/](https://tech.occrp.org/about/) (members of our
tech team on our lame tech blog) and, of course, our affiliation:
[https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/](https://www.occrp.org/en/panamapapers/).
Also:
[https://twitter.com/r3bl_/status/716754286059864065?s=09](https://twitter.com/r3bl_/status/716754286059864065?s=09)
and
[https://twitter.com/r3bl_/status/716325999785418753?s=09](https://twitter.com/r3bl_/status/716325999785418753?s=09)

Our journalists have already started posting this on Twitter, kind of like we
did yesterday when we warned Russian spokespeople that they're going to have a
sleepless night tonight:
[https://twitter.com/DrewOCCRP/status/716320506052493312?s=09](https://twitter.com/DrewOCCRP/status/716320506052493312?s=09)

~~~
hendersoon
@smegal: Yes it is. They're actual journalists working on this. It's not
illegal for most people to locate assets offshore, and just as importantly,
most of that simply isn't newsworthy.

------
pudo
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Seriously: the data that was leaked is
a formation agent that has it's clientele in specific places and focusses on a
specific type of clients. That doesn't seem to include US senators, or, for
example, senior officials from my home country, Germany.

I can assure you that the folks doing research on this have run both names
from "Western" and "other" countries. They are some of the best and most
independent-minded people I know (and yes, they do need a salary). Many are
actually from non-Western countries, check out these three amazing folks who
actually did the heavy lifting on much of the Russia stuff:
[http://krug.novayagazeta.ru/](http://krug.novayagazeta.ru/)

The fact they ended up with more stories from developing economies may just be
a bias in Mossack Fonsecas client base, or it may be indicative of who uses
these services, or of the sophistication in distancing assets from their real
owners. Don't know.

But it does make sense to consider that people who run countries under less-
than-democratic circumstances and use state capture to extract personal and
family wealth might have a greater need of offshore services. Political
leaders in Europe, on the other hand, sometimes actually are almost as boring
as they make themselves look in public.

(Disclaimer: working with one of the reporting centers, same as r3bl)

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
> or of the sophistication in distancing assets from their real owners

My good man, I can assure you that _our_ elites are impeccably candid.

They have been so since the days when they used to whiten their togas with
chalk when running for office.

Practice makes perfect.

------
Quanttek
That article is bullshit. Yes, we can't access the raw data - true, but
understandable. The editor in-chief of the SZ says they are still working on
it and will expose more and more "in waves", often getting statements from the
accused before or sharing it with law enforcement agencies. And no, they
didn't focus on Russia or Assad, one of the main revelations was that three
members of Iceland's government (PM, financial, interior) have offshore
accounts. And the scandal was, that the PM bailed out banks he had personal
investments in. so no, "corporate media" isn't ignoring "the west". Also, as
published pretty much everywhere, a number of heads of state had offshore
accounts, many allies of "the west": Mauricio Macri, president or Argentina.
Bidzina Ivanishvill. ex PM of Georgia Sigmundur something something, PM of
Iceland. Ayad H. Allawi, ex PM of Iraq. Ali Abu-Ragheb, ex PM of Jordan. Hamad
Jasim J.M. Al-Thani, ex PM of Qatar. Sheik Al-Thani, Emir of Qatar. HRH Prince
Salman, King of Saudi Arabia Ahmad Al-Nirghani, ex-president of Sudan Sultan
Al-Nahyan, president of the UAE. Pavlo Lazarenko, ex-PM of Ukraine. Petro
Poroshenko, president of Ukraine.

Also pretty much every major german bank is on the list, as published widely,
and new evidence in the Siemens scandal came to light. Non-germans didn't get
fully published yet, because the journalists give them the chance to respond
to the accusations (having an offshore account isn't illegal by itself, but is
often used to hide the identitiy of the owner to do illegal things).

To think, that for a database of 2.6tb, that data can just be made public and
seeded (see main HN thread) is absurd. Source confidentiality and all

~~~
lumberjack
>That article is bullshit.

I found the article useful actually.

I mistakenly assumed, very naively, that these people handling the leaks were
wikileaks kind of people and not these other kind of people:

>The leak is being managed by the grandly but laughably named “International
Consortium of Investigative Journalists”, which is funded and organised
entirely by the USA’s Center for Public Integrity. Their funders include

>Ford Foundation >Carnegie Endowment >Rockefeller Family Fund >W K Kellogg
Foundation >Open Society Foundation (Soros)

~~~
BogusIKnow
If you quote these, then why not the more completly:

"CPI reports receiving foundation support from a number of foundations,
including the Sunlight Foundation, the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism
Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Omidyar Network,
the Open Society Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts.[31] The Barbra
Streisand Foundation reports that it has funded CPI." -Wikipedia

And from their website: "Recent ICIJ funders include: Adessium Foundation,
Open Society Foundations, The Sigrid Rausing Trust, the Fritt Ord Foundation,
the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, The Ford Foundation, The David and
Lucile Packard Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts and Waterloo Foundation."

From the reporting:

\- Fat Cat Hotel: How Democratic High-Rollers Are Rewarded with Overnight
Stays at the White House.

\- Windfalls of War, a report arguing that campaign contributions to George W.
Bush affected the allocation of reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan and
Iraq

\- CPI's report, Who’s Behind the Financial Meltdown?,[45] looking at the
roots of the global financial crisis

\- Tobacco Underground, an ongoing project tracing the global trade in
smuggled cigarettes

(All from Wikipedia)

------
fweespee_ch
There is a very consistent pattern of events with sensitive subjects in the
West when dealing with powerful interests.

Step #1 - Report on the people who can't sue you effectively.

Step #2 - Verify.

Step #3 - Report on what you can verify in regards to people who can sue you.

I'd give them a month before crying bias.

Gawker exploited this loop to a degree by skipping #2 and we've seen how well
that turned out for them. However, it was largely their own hubris that
created the problem that might sink them (Hulk Hogan). Most of the rest of the
lawsuits they were able to bat away.

As much as I'd prefer some actual firebrand journalism which is willing to
report with less verification (in regards to the people in power, not the
general population), I can understand caution.

[https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-
global-...](https://panamapapers.icij.org/20160403-panama-papers-global-
overview.html)

HSBC, Credit Suisse, etc. are named so its not like they are completely
ignoring the West.

It also mentions David Cameron's father:

> Ian Cameron, a stockbroker and multimillionaire, was a Mossack Fonseca
> client who used the law firm to shield his investment fund, Blairmore
> Holdings, Inc., from U.K. taxes.

------
nl
It's probably worth noting that the author (Craig Murray) is no apologist for
non-Western dictators.

He was the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan until he decided that boiling
people alive wasn't an interrogation method he believed a supposed UK ally
should be using[1].

As such his views shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand. I think it is worth
noting that the data isn't available yet. I'm sympathetic to the view that
journalists should get a first look at the data. But be aware that the longer
they promise "more revelations to come" the higher chance that the operation
will get shut down.

[1]
[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolic...](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2004/jul/15/foreignpolicy.uk)

~~~
acqq
Additionally, we also have to consider why exactly this company out of all
possible companies was selected as the target of the "leak" (or hack?) Maybe
exactly because these who selected it as the target knew who would going to be
hit and who wouldn't.

I wouldn't be surprised when the impression of most observing or commenting
the case would assume "if somebody is not found here he's clean" instead of
"this is a (possibly very biased) subselection of some people from all who
possibly attempt to obscure something using similar methods."

------
doener
Editor in chief of sueddeutsche.de: "Just wait for what is coming next"

Source:
[https://mobile.twitter.com/ploechinger/status/71676359582094...](https://mobile.twitter.com/ploechinger/status/716763595820941312)

------
bloat
The Guardian has its faults of course, but should it really be described as
corporate media?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited)

Compared to say the Telegraph:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Frederick_Barclay)

Or the Times:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp)

~~~
force_reboot
It's hard to characterize this movement that this article is critiquing,
because it is diffuse. But I think it's fair to say that events in Syria and
Iraq, and the anti-Russian stance taken by the liberal media, show that there
is some consensus among liberals and conservatives in the US and UK around
ideas that used to be called "neoconservative".

The basic idea is that liberals want to spread liberal ideas in Russia and
other places, and realize that Europe is too tired of war to do this, so they
conclude correctly that this requires more US power. Similarly, the
neoconservatives would like to increase US power for its own sake, and the
pro-Israeli elements would like to encourage the US to be more hawkish so that
it relies on Israel as an ally more.

So the net effect is that both liberals and conservatives (of some kinds)
would like to move away from a balance of power between the US, Russia and
China, and move to a unipolar world where the US calls the shots.

~~~
notahacker
It's hard to characterise the "movement" the article is critiquing because it
isn't a movement, still less a neoconservative conspiracy against Russia.
(personally if I wanted to facilitate the spread of liberal ideas in Russia,
the very _last_ thing I'd do is boost US power to be a convenient bogeyman for
Russians to unite against)

The idea that the Guardian is reluctant to publish anything likely to unduly
upset multinational corporations or powerful Westerners - as expressed in the
original article - is a bit hard to take seriously if you've ever read the
Guardian.

The idea that liberals are actually part of some general movement to
orchestrate a "move to a unipolar world" because they have the temerity to
criticise Russian policy (as well as US policy, _especially_ US
interventionism) is lunacy.

~~~
force_reboot
You say "personally if I wanted to facilitate the spread of liberal ideas in
Russia, the very last thing I'd do is boost US power to be a convenient
bogeyman for Russians to unite against", and characterize my ideas as a
"conspiracy", but how else can you explain how the groups I described united
to support the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine[1]?

The liberals I'm referring to are certainly not especially critical of US
interventionism. I'm not referring to Chomsky or even Bernie Sanders here, I'm
talking about George Soros and his camp.

[1]
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa)

 _The Democratic party 's National Democratic Institute, the Republican
party's International Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid
are the main agencies involved in these grassroots campaigns as well as the
Freedom House NGO and billionaire George Soros's open society institute._

 _US pollsters and professional consultants are hired to organise focus groups
and use psephological data to plot strategy._

------
kalv3n
Ford Foundation is no longer controlled by the Ford Family, and has divested
itself of all Ford assets. I don't think you can reasonably believe that
funder interference, or fear of funder interference, would alter how this into
gets reported. You certainly can't make that claim about Ford, specifically.

I've also worked with OSF before, and can absolutely say that they routinely
fund matters that fit the ideology of the Soros families, even if those grants
fund activities critical of wealthy investment managers.

------
bluefox
This guy is impatient... They learned this from wikileaks: 10 huge headlines
spread across half a year is more effective than 1 huge headline today.

~~~
hendersoon
Actually, Wikileaks released a dump of everything Chelsea Manning sent them,
including diplomatic cables that only served to hurt innocents across the
globe. That's a great example of what not to do.

The Guardian and Washington Post handled Snowden's leaks very differently,
sourcing and verifying each article, then releasing quite a lot more than 10
major headlines over the course of a year or so. I trust the ICIJ will do the
same.

~~~
xyzzy123
Wikileaks released the 'insurance file' encrypted. The release of the password
seems to be some kind of bizarre mix-up, the Guardian journalists released it
in a book... See:

[https://unspecified.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/wikileaks-
passw...](https://unspecified.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/wikileaks-password-
leak-faq/)

~~~
hendersoon
Thank you for that link. I was not aware of the circumstances.

------
takno
In the first week this is just an ultra paranoid reaction. The comments about
corporate ownership in view of the guardian being owned by an independent
trust, and about them destroying the wikileaks info indicate that the author
is either poorly informed or a shit-stirrer. The UK press in particular has to
vet stuff before in prints in order to avoid being sued out of existence, and
as a matter of good journalism will stretch this out over the summer

------
thmcmahon
Found at least some of the raw documents on the ICIJ researcher Mago Torres'
document cloud account.
[https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Account:%2013504...](https://www.documentcloud.org/public/search/Account:%2013504-margarita-
torres)

------
hendersoon
Here's a map showing all entities mentioned in the Panama Papers. TONS in the
west, including the US.

[https://briankilmartin.cartodb.com/viz/54ddb5c0-f80e-11e5-9a...](https://briankilmartin.cartodb.com/viz/54ddb5c0-f80e-11e5-9a9c-0e5db1731f59/embed_map)

~~~
acqq
Where is your link from? Isn't that map based on the 2014 leaked data?

~~~
hendersoon
It was tweeted by one of the journalists last night-- I can't find the source
tweet easily now. Reference is to the "panama papers" so no, it is current.

------
smelendez
ICIJ says they'll make the database searchable, as they've done with previous
leaks, as of next month.

------
coleca
The Miami Herald has started some excellent reporting around what this reveals
about the booming Miami luxury real estate market.

[http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-
news/ar...](http://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-
news/article69248462.html)

------
BogusIKnow
"There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca by massive western
corporations or western billionaires – the main customers."

Such as strong claim ('main customers') would be nice to be substantiated.

Also the author needs to show the data is there.

If this is the map (linked in another comment), and it main customers were not
cut out, then it doesn't look as it has a lot of e.g. US content.

[https://briankilmartin.cartodb.com/viz/54ddb5c0-f80e-11e5-9a...](https://briankilmartin.cartodb.com/viz/54ddb5c0-f80e-11e5-9a9c-0e5db1731f59/embed_map)

------
a3n
I am "hoping" to see US clients exposed. But even if they are, I expect a big
"meh" from any authority that could do anything about it. It's easier to chase
resourceless drug users and scientific publication "pirates."

------
onewaystreet
> What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the
> corporate media and their companies, and all the editors and senior
> corporate media journalists? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on
> all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack Fonseca
> searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their
> companies? What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company
> in the western stock exchanges, and on every western millionaire they could
> trace?

This is exactly why the person who leaked this information didn't just torrent
it. Not everyone that did business with Mossack Fonseca is guilty of a crime.

------
visarga
Can the 1% tell us now that they don't need privacy? The leak is similar to
the effects of digital surveillance on the population.

------
pinaceae
cui bono, two can play this game.

isn't it strange how this article springs up right after someone implicated a
group surrounding Putin?

russia's media strategy using "journalists" and forum trolls is well
documented and known, i guess you can add this one to the list.

because everything is a false flag of a false flag.

------
dredmorbius
I'm calling B.S. on Mr. Murray's claims here. ICIJ provided a full searchable
database of their prior documents trove. They're working with something
immensely larger, and the story's less than 24 hours hold.

I'm just hoping that the mainstream media carry this. It's been awfully quiet
on many fronts yet.

------
Havoc
This to me is almost bigger news than the leak itself. Its so obviously and
blatantly stacked one can't help but conclude media has been thoroughly
"captured".

~~~
carterehsmith
On CNN, top news is about some soccer star charged with DUI.

And nothing about this Panama thing on the home page.

~~~
treerock
Couldn't believe that but it absurdly true.

Checked British sites and it's splashed all across The Guardian, BBC,
Telegraph, even Sky New and the Daily Mail. Each reporting it from multiple
angles.

But the Washington Post has just: "The Panama Papers are super awkward for
Beijing". ('super awkward'? really?) Couldn't find anything on The NYTimes
front page. Fox has something at least.

------
brown9-2
The story was first published 6.5 hours ago. This is premature.

------
ddp
I pretty much figured that out from banksy:
[https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/716740923615350784](https://twitter.com/thereaIbanksy/status/716740923615350784)

~~~
not_kurt_godel
Off-topic, but what is going on with the I in "reaI"? When I replace it with
L, it resolves to the same account. Odd...

~~~
niccaluim
Looks like Twitter fixed an old trick people used to pull to make misleading
usernames. Scammers used to take advantage of the fact that lowercase L and
uppercase I are indistinguishable in sans serif fonts, so you'd end up with
people registering names like TWlTTER or StephenCoIbert to gin up followers
for spamming and the like.

(And to reiterate another poster, that's not Banksy in any case.)

------
godzillabrennus
This will hit wiki leaks. These news outlets won't be able to keep Anonymous
and others out. The world will know.

~~~
hendersoon
Raw Snowden data didn't hit wikileaks. Don't bet on it.

~~~
jacquesm
Yet.

------
Animats
Give it 24 hours until lists of names start to appear.

------
randycupertino
I wouldn't be surprised if my bosses are implicated in this. They're a rich
and powerful family with generational wealth. Will be interesting if the full
leak is published and I can search their name myself.

------
lunchTime42
Everyone involved in this is going to have a copy and a copy of a copy for
safety reasons. The whole thing will leak eventually. What a fine day at the
river, watching old enemies drifting by..

------
spdy
This will roll out slowly like the Snowden leaks over time. Lets hope an pray,
this time its about money something everyone understands an can get angry
about.

------
rrss1122
I did find it peculiar that the focus of the leak was Russian wealthy
associated with Putin. Curious to see if further leaks expose western wealthy.

~~~
spacecowboy_lon
Probably because the opportunities for gross corruption is much less in the
west (though Italy might be an outlier) - and there are well established legal
ways to shelter your assets.

------
aryehof
I'm always left wondering when data is leaked or stolen, why the data wasn't
encrypted at rest. Is it too hard or expensive to do so?

~~~
dredwerker
Possibly because it was a sysadmin that leaked it. It has to be decrypted at
some point for people to see it.

------
clamprecht
The first thing I did when I looked at the Panama papers was filter by
country, and I saw that "United States" wasn't even listed.

------
Paul_S
It's a self-destructive move by these media outlets. How much more irrelevant
do they want to make themselves?

------
edgarvm
The same thing for Unaoil scandal, it's not being covered by the media

~~~
deepnet
Unaoil is glaringly absent from the BBC.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=unaoil](http://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=unaoil)

------
smegel
> someone already with dementia

Translation: someone who can't be put on trial.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's possibly an oblique reference to one Lord Greville Janner, who was
accused of child abuse by numerous witnesses, but was spared a trial because
of advanced dementia - even though he'd been voting in the House of Lords and
attending committee meetings.

Tragically, Janner died not long after he was declared unfit to plead. Even
more tragically, it was decided the public interest would not be served by a
trial of fact which would put evidence from witnesses and alleged victims on
the record without aiming for a conviction.

Wikipedia has more of the story:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greville_Janner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greville_Janner)

------
return0
I thought so too, it's silly to pretend this is all about putin putin putin
and his cellists. Besides i would expect the russians to have moved their
money in some offshore corner in middle east rather than panama. The Bloomberg
website does not even report it in its frontpage right now (eventhough
possibly many of their customers are in the list). However i trust that they
are keeping the best bits for the starting week.

This seems very interesting btw. We should just face the fact that offshore
banking exists and is neither good or evil, its a product of globalization and
the emerging stateless jet set. If anything , maybe more and more people
should take advantage of it.

~~~
hendersoon
Tax shelters and hiding money is difficult to explain to the average man on
the street, so they're focusing on explaining the very real impact of this
sort of corruption, talking about pension funds being drained, people not
getting disability checks, and so on.

Corruption has a huge impact. The Putin fortune they talk about is blood
money. It came from raping an entire country.

------
robocaptain
> Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the
> instruction of MI6.

Wow. I actually did 'forget' this. Actually I don't think I ever heard of it.
I see lots of articles about The Guardian being under pressure, but haven't
found one confirming they actually "smashed" them. I haven't been looking that
long, so would welcome any pointers.

~~~
deepnet
GCHQ sent men with angle grinders to destroy any computer, hard drive, or chip
that had touched those files.

This prompted the Guardian to move it's head office to New York - leaving the
UK after 195 years.

A better illustration of the UK freedom of the press could not be devised. /s

Interestingly the Guardian article notes they specifically destroyed
particular chips, like the keyboard drivers...

[http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-
relea...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/31/footage-released-
guardian-editors-snowden-hard-drives-gchq)

~~~
robocaptain
Thanks for replying.. I didn't realize that all actually happened. Scary
stuff.

------
gjvc
site appears down -- connection refused

~~~
youngbullind
Retry it. It took a couple of attempts to load for me.

------
marvel_boy
So true.

