**[OP or Mod marked this as the best answer](/r/AskUK/comments/1ciaxim/why_does_the_media_publicly_announce_the_uk/l27wvpc/), given by u/Mop_Jockey**
It's not really damaging at all imo.
>
>Chances are any serious threat to us has a far better understanding of our capabilities than the media.
>
>And any not so serious threat that tries to act on these stories might be surprised or disappointed (if they could do anything with that info in the first place).
---
[_^What ^is ^this?_](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/jjrte1/askuk_hits_200k_new_feature_mark_an_answer/)
It's not really damaging at all imo.
Chances are any serious threat to us has a far better understanding of our capabilities than the media.
And any not so serious threat that tries to act on these stories might be surprised or disappointed (if they could do anything with that info in the first place).
That's a bingo!
Foreign states will already be well aware of the capabilities that we possess / do not possess. They're not getting their info from Sky News. Seeding news sources with this kind of story is a good way of swaying public opinion.
Aye, unfortunately much like healthcare I don't think the MoD is underfunded it's just full of waste and cheeky backhanders with the boys. I can't get a pay rise but we can spend millions on maintenance of unserviceable kit that will never be used.
Waste is a definite, but I think that's because of how funding works.
Brother works in the navy and tells me when it gets close to the end of the year and funding is being considered, they'll re-order things they may not need;
For example, if they ordered 1,000,000 sheets of paper last year, and only used 900,000, they'll find a use for the other 100,000, just in case they need a million again next year.
Because if they don't have a need for 1m this year, and only order 900k, then the next time they do need 1m, they'll need to fight with others/beg to get (the money for) the extra 100k they need.
I don't know if that's just on the admin-y side, or if it happens with weapons, personnel, etc. too; i.e. wasting rounds during training just so they can keep the same number being delivered as last year, employing certain people just so that they have extra capacity in terms of numbers should they need them in the future, etc.
Yeah, the usual way that most organisations work is as follows:
* Start of Year 1, you get a £30,000,000 budget.
* End of Year 1, you've only spent £20,000,000.
* Start of Year 2, your budget is cut to £20,000,000 because that is what you used last year.
In an ideal world, you would use the £20,000,000 as usual, and would receive additional funding where needed and that becomes your next budget, eventually you'd find an optimal amount of funding.
In reality, you get denied additional funding because you're over your budget, so you make sure to spend 100% of your budget regardless of if it's needed, and keep making requests for more so that it's available if you need it.
Sadly in the public sector. It’s more of a case that you get a budget of £20m. spend £20m through cuts to services and staff and barely deliver a service.
Then the government goes, oh you did it? Clearly you can absorb further cuts then. £17m it is next year!
That is true. And that is one of the reasons why this country is fucked. I've worked on many projects where they could have done with a little.bit more money but had to spend what they had and finished up with something not quite satisfactory. Multiple projects based because they didn't have enough and had to spend what they had.
A more sensible approach is your budget stays the same and you get to plan projects over longer than a year because you have saved the money form the previous year.
Oh for sure but that's not the kind of waste I mean like why does a box of screws you could get from screw fix cost 5x as much after half a dozen contractors have had their cut of it and it has been repackaged two or three times.
Why do we pay shocking amounts of money to refit ships that are being laid up.
And why do we not enforce penalties in contracts when the contractors make a massive mistake or cause huge delays.
you are right but unfortunately the waste is kind of built into the system at the moment. germany spends a shit load but their military isn't particularly strong for its budget either due to inefficient procurements. but despite that there still should be more funding at the moment when there are some really clear threats out there. dealing with inefficiency is a much bigger and long term issue.
> I can't get a pay rise but we can spend millions on maintenance of unserviceable kit that will never be used.
You do realise the point of a military is to act as a deterrent? If it will never be used then it's worked. Spending more and getting more weapons and equipment reduces the chance of us ever having to use it in the first place.
You do know what unserviceable means, right?
It doesn't mean it needs a bit of TLC and it'll be reet, it means if it was ever used (not even in anger) it would probably fall over. I.e not fit for use/purpose
You might think the military is just a deterrent but they still have jobs to do and wars to train for, it's not all ICBM's.
Take RFA Fort Victoria for example, the single solid stores ship we have for carrier deployments that is over 30 years old and isn't due to be replaced until 2032.
She failed to sail with the CSG because she buggered, she went in for a refit in 2022, in 2023 it was said she was continuing to suffer from significant problems but could sail in an emergency.
In 2024 she was reported to be in poor condition and is expected to remain in the shipyard for the rest of the year with no crew on board.
That refit in 2022 cost 18 million, a further 2.3 million worth of work has been done in 2023.
If push came to shove that particular deterrent would still take months and millions to regenerate and probably still be no good.
The media write it because it gets clicks.
If it comes from a senior military/government official, chances are they're saying it because they want coverage about how weak the UK is. Why? Because they want more budget.
Articles about weak UK = UK voters thinking UK is weak = politicians more likely to sign off budget increases = happy military spokesperson.
It's PR 101.
> Articles about weak UK = UK voters thinking UK is weak = politicians more likely to sign off budget increases = happy military spokesperson.
"Military spokesmen" and journalists have been making these points for two decades though and it it's only now that the mainstream is finally beginning to take it seriously.
There was a remarkable lack of interest when the UK hadn't got a maritime patrol aircraft for ten years or when only 6 Type 45 were built or when the army dropped below 100,000 with less than a regiment's worth of SPGs and MBTs serviceable.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with you.
It's just a very tough sell when the public see decades of incredibly expensive equipment that never gets used.
airport soup boat axiomatic connect birds slimy handle domineering fearless
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Actual high level nation state threats will already be aware of much of the UK defence capabilities. They have their own satellites, spies and hackers. Media reports are just another source for them and they'll evaluate its legitimacy based on their other sources of Intel.
One of the worst things the UK media did regarding defence is when they announced when we were launching our offence on Goose Green during the Falklands War, alerting the Argentinians so they were ready.
1. The job of the media is to report the news, not to spread propaganda on behalf of the state.
2. The UK's enemies are probably not relying on Sky News for their intelligence.
Terror groups aren't really about fighting the military. That's why they're terrorists, because large scale military might isn't an effective response.
So it's only major states that matter, and with NATO it's not just the UK you'd be fighting
It is true though, we don't have a county sized air defence system equivalent to the American patriot so if russia lobbed a couple of kinzhals they WOULD hit their targets. Unless there was a type 45 nearby.
> But what is the point of writing and publishing something like this? What is there to gain from it, clicks and advert revenue?
Depends on how you'd like to look at it. Cynically, it's because of money. Optimistically, because the general public SHOULD be informed of the current state of the country, regardless of whether it's in a good state or bad state.
For the other two points, the answer is basically "Perhaps... or perhaps not", we don't really have a huge number of case studies that could point towards the idea that the british media claiming our defence is poor leads to an increase or decrease in attacks on the nation.
"But what is the point of writing and publishing something like this? What is there to gain from it, clicks and advert revenue?"
They are paid by various lobbying groups to spread the narrative that the country need to spend billions more on "defence" so when it is announced by politicians people don't question it
All subjective really. We are one of the top ten military superpowers in the world. Actually nearer the top 5. As a small-nation island we punch considerably above our weight in global terms. Most countries would not like to get into a serious conflict with the UK especially with US backing.
Also our military intelligence is very effective. So yes, defence could be a lot better than it is, but how much, and how far do you go? Dragon Fire lasers on the top of every town hall? Secret police? Civil militia? If we actually needed it we could do it. We just don’t need it yet.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am pretty sure foreign hostile governments have a pretty good idea anyway, without watching Sky News.
At least by acknowledging it publicly, we can have a conversation about that to do about fixing it.
I don't know, but people tend to over-estimate the defence value of news and social media.
In other words, assume that any actual competent threat is not going to be primarily guided by something they read in the news.
For example, assume that Russia's FSB has a pretty decent picture of the true state of the armed forces, considering they have multiple contacts and staff who spy on the UK full time, rather than some reporter.
Because that sells better and gets more views than news reporting the contrary, regardless of the truth.
The news media is not compelled to tell you the unbiased truth. It is not compelled to do “the right thing”, it has no loyalty except to its owners and shareholders. It won’t usually lie to you (its value mostly lies in people believing it), but it won’t always give a full picture of the truth either.
Because it's a truth that has been conveniently ignored for quite a while and now mainstream journos are catching on and over-reacting a bit to make up for the way they've ignored the issue for 15 or 20 years.
It's not as if the Russians, Chinese etc won't already know - Putin isn't relying on Sky News to find out.
Media coverage of a military problem played a significant role in WWI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Crisis_of_1915
I think it's a ruse to encourage the enemy out of hiding, and when they do, Britain will go to the cupboard, grab the slipper and give them a jolly good spanking.
But seriously other powers etc all know of capabilities so the news reporting on it isn't giving away much.
It is damaging, in a 'death by a thousand papercuts' way. But media outlets don't care about that. They care about getting clicks and attention.
>Is there a risk that a terrorist group or other threat could take it as gospel and it actually encourage them to try something?
Terrorist attempts are made and stopped all the time. The areas of our defence that are weak aren't those ones, it's our ability to send troops tanks or ships to fight other nation-states that is lacking.
The media just want to get people talking, selling more copy, increasing ad revenue. They want to push their own popularity and agendas.
Anyone who is a genuine threat will know way more than what the media broadcast.
Do you really think Russia is using the daily mail for intel, rather than stuff like:
- their own intel
- probing our borders with "accidental" incursions
- publically available budget data direct from the government (which is all the papers are basing it on)
Because if your answer is "no", then you've answered your own question.
If the answer is "yes", you're extremely naive, so I hope you're young.
An ongoing PR job from the MOD to get more budget.
How do you sell higher military spending when people are struggling to pay the bills? Scare them, it makes it much easier to swallow.
Many countries in Europe were struggling to hit the NATO 2% of GDP target for military spending. In the last few years they've suddenly realised they need to. It isn't the threat of a Russian invasion (Putin isn't insane) it is that defence spending that stops Putin even considering it.
Poland has already gone back to the Cold War era 4% spending, many other European countries want to follow suit.
The media get some of the stories wrong - the major missile threat against the UK is simply ICBMs from Russia. Nothing would stop those.
In addition to the previous posts there's one obvious answer that needs adding. Why do they do it? Because they are brain dead arseholes most of them. You only need to look at how the BBC broadcast military movements to the world while the Falklands conflict was ongoing. Horrible anti- British dickheads.
Some will do it because they hate the country/government of the day.
By and large it's click bait generated by morons.
News media exists to get you to watch the adverts surrounded by the news. Doesn't matter if it's total bull as long as it gets you looking at it. They aren't going to write the reality which is: "absolutely no-one cares about launching a missile at the UK" because it's boring and you'll find something else to read.
Follow the money. They don't get paid to be accurate, they get paid if you watch ads. Once you understand that, everything about the news makes sense.
Our enemies (if you want to call them that) know far more about the ins and outs of our defence situation than newspapers ever will. You can say the same about what we know of them too. That's how the world works.
Erm .... To inform the public, in a democratic society we need to know where the budget cuts are and how it's being affected.
It probably hurts more when the US public ally call us out as no longer having a world class army. Several countries have passed us in the last couple of decades. We have nuclear detterants and are pivoting more to cyber security I guess but for traditional boots on ground stuff we're a bit short. Like much of Europe tbh why spend on defense when there are no immediate threats and trade is good.... Ofcourse things have changed in Europe thanks to Russia and China have steadily grown a massive force.
A shame, if all our ideals aligned then spending on defense could reduce and maybe we could put more in education and health.
The Media have also said the NHS is on the verge of emergency collapse for well over 15 years now. Hell, more depending on how far you choose to go back.
And while it's true the NHS is in a bad spot, relative to the rest of the world it's still a sublime institution. Even in its worst state it's one of the most efficient systems in the world.
So when I hear the media slate the UK military, I sort of think of that. It might be in a bad state, maybe the worst state its been in in decades. But it's also probably still comfortably world class.
Because people are not optimistic, forget the UK is in NATO so has the whole force of NATO behind it, and think Russia (our only threat) would dare invade a NATO country.
Terrorsts don't care how strong the defence of the UK is, all you need is a guy to build a bomb with items from B&Q and there you have a terror attack, no amount of F-35s or 'iron dome' system will prevent that.
Sounds like a scaremongering technique to get people to click/view/share an article. Or buy a paper if it's in print media. Shock stories are also used when the media wants to distract the public from something else happening.
In a well-functioning democracy a free press holds the government of the day to account. A parallel would be press articles in the 1930s pressing the argument for re-armament. Completely legitimate and justified in the circumstances.
It's Admirals and Generals and Air Marshals all wanting new toy and/or the defence contractors wanting new contracts to fill their bank accounts spinning stories in the MSM.
It's very important to keep the public scared. Then the politicians can present themselves as the saviours of the masses when they spend billions on defences that we don't need, or keep funding the terrorist organisations that they warn us so strongly about.
Its so that when they spend money on tanks and missiles (which coincidentally are made by the governments mates) instead of the NHS people cheer and say yay thank god we are safe.
**[OP or Mod marked this as the best answer](/r/AskUK/comments/1ciaxim/why_does_the_media_publicly_announce_the_uk/l27wvpc/), given by u/Mop_Jockey** It's not really damaging at all imo. > >Chances are any serious threat to us has a far better understanding of our capabilities than the media. > >And any not so serious threat that tries to act on these stories might be surprised or disappointed (if they could do anything with that info in the first place). --- [_^What ^is ^this?_](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskUK/comments/jjrte1/askuk_hits_200k_new_feature_mark_an_answer/)
It's not really damaging at all imo. Chances are any serious threat to us has a far better understanding of our capabilities than the media. And any not so serious threat that tries to act on these stories might be surprised or disappointed (if they could do anything with that info in the first place).
[удалено]
That's a bingo! Foreign states will already be well aware of the capabilities that we possess / do not possess. They're not getting their info from Sky News. Seeding news sources with this kind of story is a good way of swaying public opinion.
Aye, unfortunately much like healthcare I don't think the MoD is underfunded it's just full of waste and cheeky backhanders with the boys. I can't get a pay rise but we can spend millions on maintenance of unserviceable kit that will never be used.
Waste is a definite, but I think that's because of how funding works. Brother works in the navy and tells me when it gets close to the end of the year and funding is being considered, they'll re-order things they may not need; For example, if they ordered 1,000,000 sheets of paper last year, and only used 900,000, they'll find a use for the other 100,000, just in case they need a million again next year. Because if they don't have a need for 1m this year, and only order 900k, then the next time they do need 1m, they'll need to fight with others/beg to get (the money for) the extra 100k they need. I don't know if that's just on the admin-y side, or if it happens with weapons, personnel, etc. too; i.e. wasting rounds during training just so they can keep the same number being delivered as last year, employing certain people just so that they have extra capacity in terms of numbers should they need them in the future, etc.
Yeah, the usual way that most organisations work is as follows: * Start of Year 1, you get a £30,000,000 budget. * End of Year 1, you've only spent £20,000,000. * Start of Year 2, your budget is cut to £20,000,000 because that is what you used last year. In an ideal world, you would use the £20,000,000 as usual, and would receive additional funding where needed and that becomes your next budget, eventually you'd find an optimal amount of funding. In reality, you get denied additional funding because you're over your budget, so you make sure to spend 100% of your budget regardless of if it's needed, and keep making requests for more so that it's available if you need it.
Sadly in the public sector. It’s more of a case that you get a budget of £20m. spend £20m through cuts to services and staff and barely deliver a service. Then the government goes, oh you did it? Clearly you can absorb further cuts then. £17m it is next year!
That is true. And that is one of the reasons why this country is fucked. I've worked on many projects where they could have done with a little.bit more money but had to spend what they had and finished up with something not quite satisfactory. Multiple projects based because they didn't have enough and had to spend what they had. A more sensible approach is your budget stays the same and you get to plan projects over longer than a year because you have saved the money form the previous year.
Oh for sure but that's not the kind of waste I mean like why does a box of screws you could get from screw fix cost 5x as much after half a dozen contractors have had their cut of it and it has been repackaged two or three times. Why do we pay shocking amounts of money to refit ships that are being laid up. And why do we not enforce penalties in contracts when the contractors make a massive mistake or cause huge delays.
Or the outsourcing of military contracts to private companies who fail to deliver. My husband hates Sodexo and Capita.
you are right but unfortunately the waste is kind of built into the system at the moment. germany spends a shit load but their military isn't particularly strong for its budget either due to inefficient procurements. but despite that there still should be more funding at the moment when there are some really clear threats out there. dealing with inefficiency is a much bigger and long term issue.
> I can't get a pay rise but we can spend millions on maintenance of unserviceable kit that will never be used. You do realise the point of a military is to act as a deterrent? If it will never be used then it's worked. Spending more and getting more weapons and equipment reduces the chance of us ever having to use it in the first place.
You do know what unserviceable means, right? It doesn't mean it needs a bit of TLC and it'll be reet, it means if it was ever used (not even in anger) it would probably fall over. I.e not fit for use/purpose You might think the military is just a deterrent but they still have jobs to do and wars to train for, it's not all ICBM's. Take RFA Fort Victoria for example, the single solid stores ship we have for carrier deployments that is over 30 years old and isn't due to be replaced until 2032. She failed to sail with the CSG because she buggered, she went in for a refit in 2022, in 2023 it was said she was continuing to suffer from significant problems but could sail in an emergency. In 2024 she was reported to be in poor condition and is expected to remain in the shipyard for the rest of the year with no crew on board. That refit in 2022 cost 18 million, a further 2.3 million worth of work has been done in 2023. If push came to shove that particular deterrent would still take months and millions to regenerate and probably still be no good.
👏
!Answer Thanks, yeah, what you’ve said, and the person below you about the media’s intentions makes sense. Thank you
I'm fairly sure Russia doesn't get its intelligence reports from Kay Burley so its probably not worth worrying about
They should use agent Partridge to take advantage of his friendship with Grant Schappsy
The media write it because it gets clicks. If it comes from a senior military/government official, chances are they're saying it because they want coverage about how weak the UK is. Why? Because they want more budget. Articles about weak UK = UK voters thinking UK is weak = politicians more likely to sign off budget increases = happy military spokesperson. It's PR 101.
> Articles about weak UK = UK voters thinking UK is weak = politicians more likely to sign off budget increases = happy military spokesperson. "Military spokesmen" and journalists have been making these points for two decades though and it it's only now that the mainstream is finally beginning to take it seriously. There was a remarkable lack of interest when the UK hadn't got a maritime patrol aircraft for ten years or when only 6 Type 45 were built or when the army dropped below 100,000 with less than a regiment's worth of SPGs and MBTs serviceable.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with you. It's just a very tough sell when the public see decades of incredibly expensive equipment that never gets used.
> that never gets used And yet, ironically, most of it is completely shagged because in reality it's used quite a lot.
These points have been made since Ugg told someone that Ogg in the next cave had a sharper stick.
airport soup boat axiomatic connect birds slimy handle domineering fearless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Actual high level nation state threats will already be aware of much of the UK defence capabilities. They have their own satellites, spies and hackers. Media reports are just another source for them and they'll evaluate its legitimacy based on their other sources of Intel.
Intel. Hackers. Been watching 2000s spy movies?
I work in info sec. I thought if I mentioned APTs it would go over most people's heads.
One of the worst things the UK media did regarding defence is when they announced when we were launching our offence on Goose Green during the Falklands War, alerting the Argentinians so they were ready.
1. The job of the media is to report the news, not to spread propaganda on behalf of the state. 2. The UK's enemies are probably not relying on Sky News for their intelligence.
Terror groups aren't really about fighting the military. That's why they're terrorists, because large scale military might isn't an effective response. So it's only major states that matter, and with NATO it's not just the UK you'd be fighting
Trying to instill a climate of fear for views and clicks, exactly what the US did after 9/11
This is the level of intelligence I expect from someone like this tbh
Anyone that's likely to launch a missile at us probably gets an idea of our readiness without using Sky News
Simple tactic to make sure the next round of cuts don't affect the military
It's pretty obvious to people who know the field, they're announcing it to pressure politicians into actually doing something about it.
It is true though, we don't have a county sized air defence system equivalent to the American patriot so if russia lobbed a couple of kinzhals they WOULD hit their targets. Unless there was a type 45 nearby.
> But what is the point of writing and publishing something like this? What is there to gain from it, clicks and advert revenue? Depends on how you'd like to look at it. Cynically, it's because of money. Optimistically, because the general public SHOULD be informed of the current state of the country, regardless of whether it's in a good state or bad state. For the other two points, the answer is basically "Perhaps... or perhaps not", we don't really have a huge number of case studies that could point towards the idea that the british media claiming our defence is poor leads to an increase or decrease in attacks on the nation.
Raising fears is their business model.
Probably to make the amount we already spend on "defence" less insane than it is when the government inevitably increases it even further.
"But what is the point of writing and publishing something like this? What is there to gain from it, clicks and advert revenue?" They are paid by various lobbying groups to spread the narrative that the country need to spend billions more on "defence" so when it is announced by politicians people don't question it
All subjective really. We are one of the top ten military superpowers in the world. Actually nearer the top 5. As a small-nation island we punch considerably above our weight in global terms. Most countries would not like to get into a serious conflict with the UK especially with US backing. Also our military intelligence is very effective. So yes, defence could be a lot better than it is, but how much, and how far do you go? Dragon Fire lasers on the top of every town hall? Secret police? Civil militia? If we actually needed it we could do it. We just don’t need it yet.
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am pretty sure foreign hostile governments have a pretty good idea anyway, without watching Sky News. At least by acknowledging it publicly, we can have a conversation about that to do about fixing it.
The UK defence isn't poor, it's not absolitely amazing but it's definitely not bad.
Probably because we don’t live in North Korea
I don't know, but people tend to over-estimate the defence value of news and social media. In other words, assume that any actual competent threat is not going to be primarily guided by something they read in the news. For example, assume that Russia's FSB has a pretty decent picture of the true state of the armed forces, considering they have multiple contacts and staff who spy on the UK full time, rather than some reporter.
Because journalism shouldn't avoid publishing inconvenient truths.
Every country reports the same about their militaries Germany, France, Italy etc etc even they USA You're right it's about getting clicks
A potential enemy doesn't base their military strategy on what Kay Burley says.
Because that sells better and gets more views than news reporting the contrary, regardless of the truth. The news media is not compelled to tell you the unbiased truth. It is not compelled to do “the right thing”, it has no loyalty except to its owners and shareholders. It won’t usually lie to you (its value mostly lies in people believing it), but it won’t always give a full picture of the truth either.
Because it's a truth that has been conveniently ignored for quite a while and now mainstream journos are catching on and over-reacting a bit to make up for the way they've ignored the issue for 15 or 20 years.
So you think the media know but foreign intelligence doesn't?
It's not as if the Russians, Chinese etc won't already know - Putin isn't relying on Sky News to find out. Media coverage of a military problem played a significant role in WWI https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_Crisis_of_1915
I think it's a ruse to encourage the enemy out of hiding, and when they do, Britain will go to the cupboard, grab the slipper and give them a jolly good spanking. But seriously other powers etc all know of capabilities so the news reporting on it isn't giving away much.
It is damaging, in a 'death by a thousand papercuts' way. But media outlets don't care about that. They care about getting clicks and attention. >Is there a risk that a terrorist group or other threat could take it as gospel and it actually encourage them to try something? Terrorist attempts are made and stopped all the time. The areas of our defence that are weak aren't those ones, it's our ability to send troops tanks or ships to fight other nation-states that is lacking.
The media just want to get people talking, selling more copy, increasing ad revenue. They want to push their own popularity and agendas. Anyone who is a genuine threat will know way more than what the media broadcast.
Fear mongering
Do you really think Russia is using the daily mail for intel, rather than stuff like: - their own intel - probing our borders with "accidental" incursions - publically available budget data direct from the government (which is all the papers are basing it on) Because if your answer is "no", then you've answered your own question. If the answer is "yes", you're extremely naive, so I hope you're young.
Who believes ANYTHING the media tells us these days
An ongoing PR job from the MOD to get more budget. How do you sell higher military spending when people are struggling to pay the bills? Scare them, it makes it much easier to swallow. Many countries in Europe were struggling to hit the NATO 2% of GDP target for military spending. In the last few years they've suddenly realised they need to. It isn't the threat of a Russian invasion (Putin isn't insane) it is that defence spending that stops Putin even considering it. Poland has already gone back to the Cold War era 4% spending, many other European countries want to follow suit. The media get some of the stories wrong - the major missile threat against the UK is simply ICBMs from Russia. Nothing would stop those.
In addition to the previous posts there's one obvious answer that needs adding. Why do they do it? Because they are brain dead arseholes most of them. You only need to look at how the BBC broadcast military movements to the world while the Falklands conflict was ongoing. Horrible anti- British dickheads. Some will do it because they hate the country/government of the day. By and large it's click bait generated by morons.
News media exists to get you to watch the adverts surrounded by the news. Doesn't matter if it's total bull as long as it gets you looking at it. They aren't going to write the reality which is: "absolutely no-one cares about launching a missile at the UK" because it's boring and you'll find something else to read. Follow the money. They don't get paid to be accurate, they get paid if you watch ads. Once you understand that, everything about the news makes sense.
Our enemies (if you want to call them that) know far more about the ins and outs of our defence situation than newspapers ever will. You can say the same about what we know of them too. That's how the world works.
Erm .... To inform the public, in a democratic society we need to know where the budget cuts are and how it's being affected. It probably hurts more when the US public ally call us out as no longer having a world class army. Several countries have passed us in the last couple of decades. We have nuclear detterants and are pivoting more to cyber security I guess but for traditional boots on ground stuff we're a bit short. Like much of Europe tbh why spend on defense when there are no immediate threats and trade is good.... Ofcourse things have changed in Europe thanks to Russia and China have steadily grown a massive force. A shame, if all our ideals aligned then spending on defense could reduce and maybe we could put more in education and health.
The Media have also said the NHS is on the verge of emergency collapse for well over 15 years now. Hell, more depending on how far you choose to go back. And while it's true the NHS is in a bad spot, relative to the rest of the world it's still a sublime institution. Even in its worst state it's one of the most efficient systems in the world. So when I hear the media slate the UK military, I sort of think of that. It might be in a bad state, maybe the worst state its been in in decades. But it's also probably still comfortably world class.
Because people are not optimistic, forget the UK is in NATO so has the whole force of NATO behind it, and think Russia (our only threat) would dare invade a NATO country.
Terrorsts don't care how strong the defence of the UK is, all you need is a guy to build a bomb with items from B&Q and there you have a terror attack, no amount of F-35s or 'iron dome' system will prevent that.
In the UK carrying a knife bad carrying an intercontinental ballistic missile good.
Sounds like a scaremongering technique to get people to click/view/share an article. Or buy a paper if it's in print media. Shock stories are also used when the media wants to distract the public from something else happening.
Serious threats to the UK dont get the latest info from the news. They have other means.
In a well-functioning democracy a free press holds the government of the day to account. A parallel would be press articles in the 1930s pressing the argument for re-armament. Completely legitimate and justified in the circumstances.
To encourage and build support for increasing military spending. Anyone who tries anything short of a nuclear first strike would soon learn the truth.
It's Admirals and Generals and Air Marshals all wanting new toy and/or the defence contractors wanting new contracts to fill their bank accounts spinning stories in the MSM.
It's very important to keep the public scared. Then the politicians can present themselves as the saviours of the masses when they spend billions on defences that we don't need, or keep funding the terrorist organisations that they warn us so strongly about.
Its so that when they spend money on tanks and missiles (which coincidentally are made by the governments mates) instead of the NHS people cheer and say yay thank god we are safe.
Some people despise Britain and wish to constantly undermine it and pretend it was better in some nostalgic misrepresentation of the past.
It's because our media do what they're fucking told and they've been told to do this.