Media: driving down standards

By Richard North - June 20, 2025

Today’s the day that some newspapers (I don’t know how many because I can’t bear to look at more than a small sample), ceased to be newspapers and turned themselves into Boys’ Own action comics, indulging in fantasy warfare that has almost completely lost touch with reality.

A particularly egregious example graces The Times, in an article headed: “How a US strike on Iran could unfold, step by step”, which opens with the sentence: “Shortly after 10pm in the middle of the Indian Ocean, four B-2 Spirit stealth bombers take off under the cover of darkness, heading to Iran” (Italics in the original).

The product of three hacks: Larisa Brown, Defence Editor; Rhys Blakely, Science Editor; and Washington-based reporter Alistair Dawber, this really isn’t news. Technically illiterate, speculative and relying on multiple unsubstantiated assumptions, it crosses the line between informed, predictive analysis and comic-book entertainment.

Particularly cringeworthy is the assertion in the graphic headed “how it (the GBU-57) works”, that “a combination of high altitude drop and heavy weight accelerate (sic) the bomb to a high speed”. Presumably the authors believe that heavy bombs accelerate faster than lighter bombs.

The only halfway credible factoids to be gleaned from today’s media crop are the reports – typified by the Telegraph – which tell us that president Trump has delayed a decision for two weeks on whether “to join Israel’s war against Tehran”.

The Washington Post puts it more graphically with the headline: “Trump dials back war talk, sees more time for diplomacy”, the text citing White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt who confirms that Trump will wait as much as two weeks to decide whether to attack Iran’s nuclear program.

The dialling back” comment, though, comes from the paper itself, and reflects the media’s determination to talk up the role of the United States in the Israel-Iran conflict, speculating on whether US military assets will be used in the attack on the Fordow enrichment site.

Trump is said to believe there is now a “substantial chance of negotiations” with Iran, leaving White House officials watching European talks with Iran.

These are scheduled for Friday in Geneva between foreign ministers from the United Kingdom, France and Germany and the EU and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi. The Europeans, as always, are seeking to de-escalate the conflict.

A somewhat cynical WaPo comments on Trump’s assertion of a two-week deadline. With the cynicisms born of long experience, it says that this deadline follows a long-standing pattern.

On multiple topics over years, he has said he would make a decision in two weeks. Often, the paper points out, that period comes and goes without any final action. We are reminded that Trump most recently set a public two-week deadline in late May in response to reporters asking when he would be able to determine how serious Putin was about ending the war with Ukraine.

In other words, “two weeks” from Trump is rather like an African bushman counting: “one, two, many…”. This is the US president kicking the issue into the long grass, while the chips fall as they may.

Given that the current round of attacks is not yet into its first week though, even if we take Trump’s two weeks at face value, that is a long time – longer in warfare than it is in politics. By then the whole thing could be over, with the Israelis taking out the Fordow enrichment plant without US assistance.

Popping over to the Wall Street Journal for a quick look, I half expected that some of its hacks might have taken some note of its own piece that said: “Israel has a plan for Fordow and the ability to carry it out on its own”.

Predictably, the paper ignores its own scoop and, with a touch of the same weary cynicism of the WaPo, it gives a firmer rendition of the White House statement, asserting that Trump will decide on whether to strike Iran “within two weeks”, while “waiting to see if Tehran would abandon its nuclear program (sic)”.

Back on this side of the pond, the BBC’s chief North America correspondent, Gary O’Donoghue, believes this statement “has opened the window to diplomacy”, apparently oblivious to the singular fact that Israel is not involved in any talks and is carrying on regardless.

It is too much, though, to assert that this is a new low for journalism – there is too much competition across the board – although the BBC is trying its best to drive down standards, with considerable success.

Here, of course, it competes with its fellow traveller, the Guardian, which is offering an “exclusive”, linking Trump’s apparent reluctance to strike with doubts about the performance of the GBU-57.

The sub-head to its piece tells us that the likelihood of a successful US strike on Fordow is “a topic of deep contention”, with the president suggesting to defence officials it would make sense for the US to launch strikes against Iran only if the so-called “bunker buster” bomb was guaranteed to destroy the facility.

Trump, we are led to believe, has been told that dropping the GBU-57 would effectively eliminate Fordow but he does not appear to be fully convinced, which is one of the reasons why he has held off authorising strikes. Alternative briefings are suggesting that only a tactical nuclear weapon could be capable of destroying Fordow because of the depth of the facility.

Mercifully, we are told that Trump is not considering using a tactical nuclear weapon and the possibility has not been presented by defence secretary Pete Hegseth and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen Dan Caine.

Nevertheless, officials have been told that using conventional bombs, even as part of a wider strike package of several GBU-57s, would not penetrate deep enough underground and that it would only do enough damage to collapse tunnels and bury it under rubble.

Complete destruction of Fordow, it is said, would likely require the US to first soften the ground with conventional bombs and then ultimately drop a tactical nuclear weapon from a B-2 bomber.

As always, though, the Israeli viewpoint is not considered, and cannot be as the paper repeats the mantra that “any effort to destroy Fordow, would require US involvement because Israel does not possess the ordnance to strike a facility that deep or the planes to carry them”.

One continues to be appalled, therefore, with the almost childlike media obsession with “big bombs”. But, as I pointed out in my comment on yesterday’s piece, there are other factors to consider.

Crucially, I observed, size and weight are not absolute determinants of performance, as Barnes Wallis proved with his Dambuster bomb. It is how the explosives are used which makes the difference.

In my article, I have discussed how lighter bombs might have an effect and in my comment I also referred to the sequential effect – using relatively small amounts of explosives over a period.

I personally have seen the effects of quarry blasts where relatively small amounts of explosives, with blasts repeated many times, have all but demolished houses and reinforced concrete structures a mile away. There was no visible effect from any one blast, but the cumulative effect does the damage.

In the use of explosives, a lot depends on the nature of the rock formation in which the charges are detonated. If the Israelis are canny – and they usually are – they will have done a seismic survey in the Fordow area, looking for fault lines they can exploit. As long as the right techniques are used, modern 3D mapping using seismological data is seriously impressive and can yield much detail.

Rock formations are never homogenous and all will have weaknesses. One small bomb in the right place can do a lot more damage than a larger munition placed indiscriminately. One would expect the Israelis to be fully aware of the techniques necessary to maximise the effects of any strike.

What we will not find, though, is any attempt by the media to discuss or report on such issues, as they play “follow the leader” in talking up hypothetical US involvement rather than addressing the issues on the ground (or under it).

But then, with such determination to plumb new depths, one can hardly be surprised that the media doesn’t actually have the time to report real news.