特朗普时代的情报机构和媒体
Donald Trump has come to office having reviled and degraded two institutions in the United States that claim to be pillars of the country’s democratic system: the news media, and the intelligence services.
The irony embedded within this deliberate denigration of fact is that journalists and spies have for decades viewed each other with suspicion, even enmity. The wariness has been especially intense in recent years amid the disclosures via WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden and the enthusiasm of much of the media to publish them. Yet now hacks and spooks find themselves unwitting bedfellows as they face the contempt of the incoming president.
这种蓄意抵赖事实的行为的讽刺之处在于，数十年来记者和间谍这两个群体一直以怀疑、甚至敌意的眼光看待彼此。近年来，在维基解密(WikiLeaks)和爱德华?斯诺登(Edward Snowden)的泄密事件以及很多媒体对此积极报道的情况下，相互间的戒心格外强烈。不过，如今记者和间谍发现，面对这位新总统的蔑视，他们不知不觉地成了一条战壕里的战友。Throughout his campaign for the presidency, Trump called reporters “dishonest”, “disgusting” and “scum”. Then there was that press conference last week when he refused to take a question from CNN’s senior White House correspondent, Jim Acosta, shouting him down — apparently enraged that CNN had been the first to report that former President Obama had been briefed on lurid allegations about him in an intelligence dossier. To adopt the style of his tweets, which often end with a shocked expression and an exclamation mark — “Unprecedented!”
在竞选过程中，特朗普一再称记者“不诚实”、“令人讨厌”和“人渣”。之后，在一个新闻发布会上，他拒绝接受美国有线新闻网(CNN)的高级白宫记者吉姆?阿科斯塔(Jim Acosta)的提问，提高声调盖过后者——显然是被CNN率先报道情报机构向即将卸任的奥巴马总统报告一份情报档案中有关他的猥琐指控激怒了。借用他在Twitter上的发帖风格——往往以震惊的表情和惊叹号结尾——“史无前例！”
In his belief that the US intelligence agencies leaked that dossier, he likened their actions to Nazi Germany’s. This was merely the latest rhetorical attack on the intelligence agencies by their new commander-in-chief. He previously ridiculed their view that Russian hackers had broken into data held by the Democratic National Committee — and leaked a mass of material embarrassing to the Democratic candidate for the presidency, Hillary Clinton — by suggesting that, since they had wrongly believed that Saddam Hussein of Iraq held stocks of weapons of mass destruction, they could no longer be trusted.
他认为美国情报机构向媒体爆料了该档案，并把他相信发生的这种行为与纳粹德国相提并论。这只是这位新任总司令最近一次狠批情报机构。他之前曾暗示，由于情报机构当年错误地以为伊拉克的萨达姆?侯赛因(Saddam Hussein)持有大规模杀伤性武器，因此他们不再值得信任，以此嘲弄情报机构认为俄罗斯黑客入侵民主党全国委员会(DNC)数据库、并泄露大量令民主党总统候选人希拉里?克林顿(Hillary Clinton)尴尬的材料的结论。Trust is the prize. The US news media has, more than other journalistic cultures, insisted (though now with increasing exceptions) on its commitment to neutrality and a discipline of checking: in this lies its claim to be trusted. For journalists who care about the craft, seeking and publishing as much of the truth as they can discover remains the reason for their power and privileges, and for trust to be placed in them. The intelligence services, which provide a synopsis of highly classified material to the Oval Office every day before 8am, in the form of the President’s Daily Brief, would find their work rendered meaningless if the administration dismissed it as either intrinsically flawed because of past error, or politically partial. (During his campaign, Trump declared that he had no need for such a briefing.)
信任是无价之宝。相比其他国家的新闻文化，美国新闻媒体向来在更大程度上坚守中立和严谨核查的承诺（尽管如今例外行为越来越多）：这是美国媒体自称值得信任的依据。对于那些在乎职业操守的新闻从业人员来说，寻找和公布他们所发现的全部真相，仍然是他们拥有威力和特权、并受到信任的理由。情报机构每天早8点前以《总统每日简报》(President’s Daily Brief)形式向椭圆形办公室(Oval Office)呈交高度机密的情报摘要，如果特朗普政府认为《简报》本质上有缺陷（因为过去的失误）或者带有政治倾向，因而对它置之不理，情报机构会发现自己的工作毫无意义。（特朗普曾在竞选期间宣告，他不需要这类简报。）President Trump campaigned to destroy trust in two of the institutions most requiring it as the basis for their existence. In doing so, he has both implicitly and explicitly demanded that trust be placed only, or at least mainly, in him. The truth begins, and ends, in him. And Trump has mounted that campaign knowing that both journalism and the intelligence agencies are more fragile than they have been in the past.
特朗普总统在竞选时竭力摧毁人们对这两家最需要信任作为存在依据的机构的信任。这样一来，他话里话外地要求人们只信任他，至少主要信任他。真相由他开始，并以他为终结。而特朗普在这方面造势时，深知新闻业和情报机构比以往更加脆弱。The secret services were strongly criticised for failing to detect the plans and activities of the 9/11 hijackers. They were excoriated, especially on the left, for wrongly maintaining that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. They were damaged, again, by the CIA’s use of waterboarding on suspected jihadists, classified as torture. And they suffered once more from Snowden’s theft of documents from the National Security Agency in 2013, which revealed that US citizens’ communications were being monitored without their knowledge. The agencies are turned to now because Americans, as many others, fear the actions of Islamist terrorists — but that would dissipate overnight if they missed signs of a terrorist-inspired mass murder.
由于未能察觉9/11事件劫机分子的计划和行动，情报部门受到了强烈批评。由于错误地坚称萨达姆拥有大规模杀伤性武器，他们受到了严厉指责，特别是来自左翼的谴责。由于中央情报局(CIA)对圣战嫌疑人使用水刑（被视为酷刑），他们的形象再次受损。由于2013年斯诺登窃取国家安全局(NSA)文件——揭露了美国公民在不知情的情况下受到监视——他们遭受了又一次打击。如今人们依赖情报机构，是因为美国人像其他很多国家的人们一样，担心伊斯兰主义恐怖分子的行动，但如果情报机构错过了恐怖分子发起大规模屠杀行动的迹象，这种信赖会在一夜间消失殆尽。Journalism, which has never been so available, so varied and so accessible to comment, correction and argument from its audience, nevertheless suffers from the closures and cuts in one of its main institutions: the newspaper. Putting out a quality newspaper with wide coverage and high standards of fact-checking and reliability is becoming increasingly hard — as advertising rapidly deserts print for digital, which usually means Google and Facebook. All newspapers struggle to adapt to the digital age: some with present success, others with continued heavy losses.
新闻业从没有像如今这样易于获得、多样、而且受众可以轻易进行评论、更正以及争辩，但与此同时，新闻业的主要媒介之一报纸面对停刊和缩减规模。出版一份报道全面、在核查事实和可信度方面达到高水准的优质报纸，正变得越来越难——广告业正迅速抛弃纸质媒体，转投数字化媒体，而后者往往意味着谷歌(Google)和Facebook。所有报纸都挣扎着适应数字化时代：一些报纸暂时取得了成功，而其他报纸继续严重亏损。Broadcast and cable news have fared well in the past year — Leslie Moonves, chief executive of CBS, said last spring that Trump’s campaign “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS”. But the “mainstream” media are regarded with suspicion by a large Majority of Americans: Gallup’s annual poll of those with a large or fair amount of trust in news media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” dropped to 32 per cent last September (14 per cent among Republicans). These were new lows.
过去一年，地面和有线电视新闻的形势不错——去年春天，美国哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)首席执行官莱斯利?穆恩夫斯(Leslie Moonves)曾表示，特朗普的竞选“对美国来说或许不好，但对CBS来说简直太好了”。但大多数美国人以怀疑的态度来看待“主流”媒体：去年9月盖洛普(Gallup)的年度调查显示，非常相信或比较相信新闻媒体“全面、准确和公平地报道新闻”的人下滑至32%（在共和党人士中持这个观点的人仅为14%），创下了新低。Trump has been able both to capitalise on this trend, and to further it. His posture is of a piece with other populist leaders: in Italy, Beppe Grillo, leader of the Five Star Movement, presently Italy’s most popular, recently called for citizen juries to judge journalists’ accuracy, echoing Trump’s view that they were the main source of “fake news”. For all who take the populist route in politics, news media that attempt a coherent, fact-based narrative of current events are a natural enemy. The internet, with its promiscuous mixture of fact, conjecture, partisan spin and fake news deliberately constructed to gain attention and income, is a much more attractive medium within which to work. Thus Grillo has risen to challenge conventional Italian parties through his blog, and Trump to command US politics and media through Twitter.
特朗普既利用了这一趋势，也对其推波助澜。他的姿态与其他民粹主义领导人一致：在意大利，五星运动党(Five Star Movement)领导人、目前意大利人气最高的政客贝佩?格里洛(Beppe Grillo)最近呼吁设立公民陪审团来评判记者的准确性，这呼应了特朗普有关记者是“假新闻”主要源头的观点。对于所有在政治上走民粹主义路线的政客，试图对时事进行以事实为基础的有条理的报道的新闻媒体都是天敌。相比之下，掺杂着事实、推测、党派炒作以及为了吸引眼球和盈利而有意捏造的假新闻的互联网，是更加过瘾的媒介。因此，格里洛通过博客挑战意大利传统政党，而特朗普将通过Twitter对美国政治和媒体发号施令。It is a measure of the radicalism of Trump’s postures that he has pushed two sparring partners into the same corner. Before Trump, the largest challenge facing the intelligence agencies from the press was the culture of leaking — brought home to them by the taking of some 1.5m files from the National Security Agency by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor.
突显特朗普过激姿态的一个迹象是，他把两个相互争吵的机构逼到了同一个墙角。在特朗普之前，情报机构面对来自新闻界的最大挑战是泄密文化——NSA前合同工斯诺登从该机构窃取了约150万份文件，使这个问题的严重性表露无遗。The NSA leaks, and Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks, erected the scaffolding for a new era of journalism. In Assange’s words, mass leaks issuing forth from the centre of power created a “new system”, a tool of liberation as powerful as Marx’s vision of the proletariat produced by 19th-century industrialisation, tearing down the oppressive and mystifying structures of capitalism and bourgeois society.
NSA文件泄露事件以及朱利安?阿桑奇(Julian Assange)的维基解密，为新闻业的新时代搭起了脚手架。用阿桑奇的话来说，权力中心的大规模泄密事件创造了一个“新体系”，一种强大的解放工具，就像19世纪工业化催生的马克思的愿景：无产阶级砸烂充满压迫而又故弄玄虚的资本主义体制和资产阶级社会。In the hands of the American lawyer and writer Glenn Greenwald, one of the small group trusted (on no personal acquaintance) by Snowden to handle the NSA material, the leaks have been moulded into a challenge, both to the western democratic states and the journalism they produce. Leaks of huge caches of data are now routine in journalism: the most dramatic in the past year has been the estimated 11.5m files taken from Mossack Fonseca, a Panamanian law firm, detailing how the rich get richer by evading taxes — a haul that chimes snugly with present anger at widening inequalities of wealth.
在美国律师兼记者格伦?格林沃尔德(Glenn Greenwald)——他是斯诺登（在个人不认识的情况下）信任并交出NSA文件的小团体的一人——手中，泄密行为被搞成了一个挑战：既是对西方民主国家的挑战，也是对泄密产生的新闻报道的挑战。如今，泄露海量数据已成了新闻业的常态：过去一年最戏剧化的事件是从巴拿马律所莫萨克?丰塞卡(Mossack Fonseca)取走约1150万份文件，详细记录了富人如何通过逃税而变得更加富有——这种泄密与当今人们对财富不平等日益加剧的愤怒十分吻合。Greenwald believes that journalistic objectivity is a “suffocating constraint”, “self-neutering” and that “strong, highly factual, aggressive, adversarial journalism” is the only form fitting for societies in which the political power has so comprehensively lost any claim to trust or respect. In this sense, the leaking movement can make common cause with Trump and other populists: both see the mainstream news media as mendacious and part of a corrupt establishment. Trump has praised Assange for publishing the leaked DNC emails: it remains to be seen whether he will follow senior Republicans in criticising the departing President Obama’s commutation of the 35-year sentence imposed on Chelsea Manning, a soldier who leaked sensitive military and diplomatic material to WikiLeaks in 2010.
格林沃尔德认为，新闻客观性是一种“令人窒息的约束”，“自我阉割”，而只有“强势、高度事实化、咄咄逼人、对抗性的新闻”形式才符合政治权力已全面失去信任和尊重的当今社会。从这层意义上讲，泄密运动与特朗普和其他民粹主义者不谋而合：双方都认为主流新闻媒体是虚假的，是腐败体制的一部分。特朗普因阿桑奇公布了民主党全国委员会的泄密邮件而赞扬了他：尚不清楚特朗普是否会像资深共和党人士那样批评奥巴马在卸任前给切尔西?曼宁(Chelsea Manning)减刑的举动。2010年，身为军人的曼宁把敏感的军事和外交材料泄露给了维基解密，因此被判35年有期徒刑。The growth of the power and the reach of the intelligence agencies in all states, and their much larger ability to monitor communications, does need an active, inquiring and knowledgable journalism if the much-vaunted purpose of the trade — “to hold power to account” — is to be properly fulfilled. In the US, the intelligence-industrial complex is now a huge network of agencies and private contractors. More than 1,200 state organisations and nearly 2,000 private companies, according to an estimate by the Washington Post in 2010, work on some aspect of counter-terrorism, intelligence and homeland security. No individual, committee or agency can properly monitor that vast archipelago.
在各国情报机构的权力和触角扩大、以及它们监听通信的能力大幅增加的情况下，要切实履行新闻界夸耀的“向权力问责”的目的，确实需要活跃、爱刨根问底、有水平的新闻工作。在美国，如今情报/工业体系已经形成了由机构和私营承包商组成的巨大网络。根据《华盛顿邮报》(Washington Post) 2010年的估算，超过1200个国家组织和近2000家私营企业在从事反恐、情报和国土安全方面的工作。任何个人、委员会和机构都无法监督如此庞大的群体。In his sharply critical history of the CIA (Legacy of Ashes, 2007), Tim Weiner writes that its need for secrecy “would always conflict with the openness of American democracy”. In research for a book I wrote on the relationship between journalism and the intelligence agencies, based on the three largest centres in the west — France, the UK and the US — it became obvious that their much-extended ability to monitor communications and identify suspects almost everywhere, coupled with their need for secrecy, came into conflict with French and British, as well as US, democratic practice. The problem has only become more intractable.
蒂姆?韦纳(Tim Weiner)在他2007年出版的尖锐批评CIA历史的著作《监听大国》(Legacy of Ashes)中写道，该机构对保密的需要“总是会与美国民主制度的开放性相冲突”。我曾以西方三大中心（法国、英国和美国）新闻界和情报机构之间的关系写了一本书，在为该书做研究的过程中，我清楚地看到，情报机构在几乎任何地方监听通信和追查嫌疑人的庞大触角范围，加上他们对保密的需要，与法国和英国、以及美国的民主实践都发生了冲突。这个问题近年只是变得更加棘手。To talk to spies, especially the leaders, is to grasp that they live between two strongly conflicting poles. They are conscious of the pressures on them to be more open and transparent. But for the agency heads, “transparency” and “openness”, while formally assented to in public statements, are suspect concepts, capable of endless encroachment into areas that must remain closed.
和间谍、特别是情报机构负责人交谈，可以理解他们生活在两个强烈冲突的极端的夹缝中。他们知道自己承受的压力——要更加开放和透明。但对于情报机构负责人来说，公开声明中已经正式纳入的“透明”和“公开”是可疑的概念，会没完没了地侵蚀必须保密的领域。During his time as chief of MI6, from 2004-09, Sir John Scarlett decided to commission a history of the service, never before allowed on grounds of security. Against some resistance, Scarlett went ahead: the result, a detailed and readable account, began in 1909 but ended in 1949 — the closest to the present time that the agency felt it could come.
在2004年-2009年领导英国军情六处(MI6)，约翰?斯卡利特爵士(Sir John Scarlett)决定委托编写该机构的历史；出于安全理由，此前这从未被批准过。尽管遭遇了一些抵制，但斯卡利特继续推进：结果就是一部详尽且可读性较强的记录，从1909年开始，但只写到了1949年——这是该机构觉得它可以解密的最近时间点。Meta Ramsay, one of the most senior women to serve in MI6, told me she had been keen for the service to “avow” itself — admit it existed — after decades of blank denials by successive governments and reams of fictitious stories by journalists: it was avowed in 1992 by the new prime minister John Major. She changed her mind, she said, in large part because she thought parliament’s intelligence and security committee probed too deeply, and extracted from the agency heads too much. “If people are going to risk their lives in order to give information they must be assured that the services won’t leak. They won’t have that trust if they think a lot is being told to a parliamentary committee,” she said.
梅塔?拉姆齐(Meta Ramsay)是军情六处级别最高的女性之一，她告诉我，她曾经渴望该机构能“承认”自己的存在——在几十年期间，历届英国政府都矢口否认其存在，记者们则写了大量虚构的故事：1992年，当时的新首相约翰?梅杰(John Major)承认了军情六处的存在。她说，后来她改变了想法，很大程度上是因为她认为英国议会的情报和安全委员会盘问得过深，从该机构的头头那里得到了太多情报。“如果人们冒着生命危险提供信息，他们必须得到军情六处不会泄密的保证。如果他们认为很多情报被告知了议会委员会，他们将不会有那种信任，”她说。The former chief who most fully — and mordantly — explained to me the place of the services in contemporary society was Pierre Brochand, who recalled that when he took over as head of France’s external intelligence service DGSE in 2002, “the prevailing attitude was a sort of anxious paralysis, not too dissimilar to a mongoose tetanised by a snake and waiting to be eaten”.
法国对外安全总局(DGSE)前局长皮埃尔?布罗尚(Pierre Brochand)最为全面（也最犀利）地向我讲解了情报机构在现代社会中的处境。他回忆道，当他在2002年接管这个法国对外情报机构时，“普遍的心态是一种焦虑的瘫痪，就像与一只被蛇缠住、等着被吃掉的猫鼬”。Where others see a threat to the agencies, and to national security, in the enhanced and constantly improving abilities of hackers, Brochand takes a broader view. He believes that “the paranoia that goes with the trade of intelligence in western societies” in part stems from these societies’ transformation into “individualistic democracies [with] the motto of liberty, equality, transparency, morality”. Transparency is, he continues, “in a way, the condition for protecting liberty and equality, since information is power and if it is hidden from the people both liberty and equality are supposed to be in danger”. He thinks that realpolitik, a dispassionate and secret furthering of the aims of the state, which must be “at the core of the workings of an intelligence service”, is now seen as a menace.
别人从黑客增强且不断提升的能力中看到了对情报机构乃至国家安全的威胁，而布罗尚的视角更宽。他认为，“伴随西方社会情报工作的无端恐惧”在某种程度上源自于这些社会向“个人主义民主政体的转型，其箴言是自由、平等、透明、道义”。他接着说，透明“从某些方面说是保护自由与平等的条件，因为信息就是力量，如果对人民隐匿信息，自由和平等会被认为处于危险之中”。他认为，现实政治——推进国家目标的一种冷静、秘密的方式，它必须处于“情报机构运作的核心”——如今被视为一种威胁。Meanwhile the state, once above civil society, “is no longer in the driver’s seat, everything it does coming under the close scrutiny of the controllers — judges, journalists, pollsters, advocacy NGOs, whistleblowers, etc — and what remains out of reach from their constant oversight being, by definition, highly suspicious”. During his six-year tenure, Brochand did open up the DGSE to briefings and, for the higher journalists, lunches — but confined what was passed on to “titbits of sexy information they could publish without inconvenience for us, but of great value for them, since it gave them an opportunity to maintain their reputation of insiders”.
与此同时，一度被置于公民社会之上的国家，“不再处于掌控位置，其所做的一切会处于控制者——法官、记者、民意调查员、非政府组织、告密者等等——的密切监视之下，而如果有什么事情还能处于他们的持续控管之外，那些事情难免变得高度可疑”。在他任职的6年期间，布罗尚确实推动了DGSE的开放，举行媒体吹风会，并和高级记者共进午餐，但透露的内容局限于“他们可以发表的点点滴滴的猛料信息，既不给我们带来不便，又对他们有巨大价值，因为这让他们有机会维护自己作为‘圈内人士’的声誉”。Though other intelligence chiefs may have been less magnificently condescending in their treatment of journalists, none would depart much from Brochand’s method. What else, they would say, can they do? John McLaughlin, a former deputy director of the CIA (and an interregnum director in 2004), told me that “the dilemma felt acutely in intelligence is that you want the world to know you’re doing a job to protect citizens?.?.?.?[but] you can’t tell them much”. Proud that the US is by some way the most open about its secret services, he nevertheless sees the price as high — perhaps too high.
虽然其他情报机构负责人对待记者或许不那么居高临下，但他们不会偏离布罗尚的方式太远。他们会问，除此之外他们还能做什么？CIA前副局长（2004年曾任过渡局长）约翰?麦克劳克林(John McLaughlin)对我说，“情报界感受最强烈的两难困境是，你想让世界知道自己在从事保护公民的工作……（但）你不能告诉他们太多”。虽然他以美国情报机构遥遥领先地最开放为傲，但他认为这样的代价很高——或许过高了。“Any adversary studying the frequent open congressional testimonies by intelligence officials, our daily press stories, our declassified intelligence publications and our endless stream of leaks would have to be hopelessly dim not to understand our priorities?.?.?.?Foreign officials, who do not have such requirements, endlessly ask me: ‘Why, in heaven’s name, do you do this?’?” He bemoans a vastly expensive and lengthy repair job on the effects of the Snowden leaks and their publication. “We have to ask the question of the media: how hard do you want my job to be?” he concluded.
“任何对手如果研究我国情报官员频繁而公开的国会作证、我们每天的新闻稿、我们解密的情报出版物以及我们层出不穷的泄密，只要不是白痴得不可救药，都会掌握我们的优先事项……不面对此类要求的外国官员不断问我：‘老天，你们为什么要这么做？’”他哀叹道，为了消除斯诺登泄密及这些机密被公开的的影响，需要进行漫长的、花费巨大的善后工作。“我们必须问媒体爱问的一个问题：你想让我的工作变得多么困难？”他最后说。The secret services have long been in conflict with the mindset that sees in the activities of the agencies at least the potential for wider repression. Sir John Scarlett, former head of MI6, becomes agitated when asked about it — saying, “The talk as if we’re living in a state on the edge of authoritarianism is nonsense. And it needs to be clear that it is so. This is a liberal society. Where do you think the officers come from?”
对于认为情报机构的活动至少有可能是更广泛镇压的心态，西方情报机构一直很反感。在被问到这一问题时，MI6前负责人斯卡利特变得非常激动，他说，“说我们仿佛生活在一个处于威权主义边缘的国家纯属无稽之谈。这一点需要明确。我们生活在自由社会。你以为情报官员们来自哪里？”If these former directors shy away from greater transparency, they do so in part because of their steady belief that they are men and women to be trusted. “You go up to any British citizen and tell them who you are and ask them to work with you — most people will say ‘yes’,” says Scarlett. “But it does depend on a consensus that you are doing the right thing.” When pressed as to why the services should always enjoy automatic trust, Scarlett said that “our” officials have “grown up and are part of a liberal society, with a structure of civil and human rights, in which they believe.”
如果说这些前情报局长不愿提高透明度，那么他们这么做的部分原因是他们坚定地认为自己是一群值得信任的人。“你随便找一个英国公民，告诉他们你是谁，请他们配合你的工作——多数人会说‘好的’，”斯卡利特说。“但这确实取决于一项共识，即你在做正确的事情。”在被追问到为什么情报机构总是应该自然而然地得到信任时，斯卡利特说，“我们的”官员们“在一个自由社会长大，是这个社会的一部分，而这个社会有一套民权和人权架构，这是他们相信的。”In his book Securing the State (2010), Sir David Omand, a former head of GCHQ, Britain’s equivalent to the NSA, provides the most intellectually vivid underpinning of his trade. In an extended teasing out of the images and meanings in the 14th-century painter Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s vast fresco in Siena’s Palazzo Pubblico — “The Allegory of Good and Bad Government” — he emphasises the dominant theme: that only security can give rise to the busy, peaceful and stable urban and agrarian society shown in the “good government” fresco. Its lack is shown, in the contrasting fresco, as cruelty, betrayal, fraud, terror and internal discord, with the figure of Tyranny lording over all. “In the allegory of Good Government, Peace and Security are twin concepts. Peace herself rests on strong defences and Security on justice firmly exercised.”
英国的政府通信总部(GCHQ)前负责人戴维?奥曼德爵士(Sir David Omand)在2010年出版的《保卫国家》(Securing the State)一书中，对自己从事的这一行做了最有理论水平的生动描述。GCHQ的职责相当于美国的NSA。在对14世纪画家安布罗焦?洛伦采蒂(Ambrogio Lorenzetti)绘于意大利锡耶纳市政厅的巨型壁画《好政府与坏政府的讽喻》(Allegory of Good and Bad Government)中的画面和涵义作了一番梳理后，他强调了其中占主导地位的主题：只有安全才能带来“好政府”壁画部分展现的繁忙、和平、稳定的城市和农村社会。与之形成鲜明对比的另一部分壁画展现的是缺乏安全所带来的残酷、背叛、欺诈、恐怖和内部不和谐，还有一个高高在上的暴君人物。“这幅壁画反映了一对孪生概念。和平本身依靠强大的防御，而安全要建立在坚定执行的正义之上。”For Omand, as for his fellows who had commanded the west’s main institutions of intelligence, security — when tempered by justice and democracy — is the keystone of the construction of a liberal society. The news media, they insist, should hold society’s other institutions to account, but not them: “You can’t tell them much”, and so trust must be taken on trust.
对欧蒙德以及那些曾经执掌西方主要情报机构的同侪而言，安全——在受到正义和民主的制约时——是打造自由社会的基石。他们坚持认为，新闻媒体应该追究社会其他机构的责任，但不是他们：“你不能对他们说太多”，也就是说，必须对信任本身给予信任。The relationship with journalism, stable enough if frequently combative, is now deeply disturbed by mass leaks and unpredictable whistleblowers: more than that, by an incoming commander-in-chief who, until now, has seen them as hostile to his short-term needs, and may seek the revenge of indifference. A new figure of Tyranny to come?
情报机构与新闻工作的关系——还算稳定，即便经常互斗——如今已经被大规模泄密、不可预测的告密者，以及（这一点更严重）新任总司令严重扰乱，后者至今将情报机构和媒体视为不利于自己的短期需要，并可能试图以冷漠来报复。新的暴君人物即将降临？John Lloyd is an FT contributing editor. ‘Journalism in an Age of Terror: Covering and Uncovering the Secret State’ (IB Tauris) is published now
约翰?劳埃德(John Lloyd)是英国《金融时报》特约编辑。他的新书《恐怖时代的新闻工作：报道和揭露秘密国家》(Journalism in an Age of Terror: Covering and Uncovering the Secret State)现已出版
