Monday's Climate Camp day of action against RBS looked like having all the classic ingredients: hard data showing the problem, coupled with direct action to help move us away from a path towards climate catastrophe. We were working in a relevant and immediate political moment: no to austerity cuts and bank bail-outs, yes to climate justice. So how did our actions get overtaken by accusations of media control and "wrecklessness"?
Unfortunately, coverage of the day was dominated by a hallmark Climate Camp smear story splashed across the media. According to a police press release put out at noon: "a substance similar to diesel or vegetable oil" spilled onto two major roads in Edinburgh." We understand that some journalists had been told about it by the police earlier.
Worryingly, almost every media organisation, from the Scotsman to the Financial Times, re-reported this despite no evidence of any kind having been presented to link this oil spill - if it happened - to the camp: no pictures of the spill; no traffic reports showing disruption; no bystanders or drivers complaining; no banner; no word from any climate activist on any website saying they did it. It appears to have been a phantom oil spill.
This "action" defined the narrative of camp's day of action. Yet, compare this with every other direct action that the Climate Camp has been involved in. In each case, the target was a corporation or government, not the general public; no one's safety was ever purposefully put at risk; and each action was cheerfully claimed by the camp, usually in a press release.
We have been here before. In 2007 apparently we were planting "hoax bombs" to shut Heathrow airport. But it wasn't true. Almost every national newspaper in the UK was forced to apologise following our complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. In 2008 it was reported (including in parliament) that there had been "70 injuries to police officers". Again not true. There were no injuries sustained in clashes with protesters, and the only injuries were caused by heatstroke and bee stings. In 2009, the police provided a fictitious account of the last moments of Ian Tomlinson's life. The public were told that the police were just trying to help Ian Tomlinson and that protesters - including those at the G20 Climate Camp - impeded them. Video footage told a very different story. This year it is a mystery oil spill.
What's ironic about all this is that the big news on the Guardian's website isn't an investigation into whether or not the police deliberately misled the public by duping lazy newspapers into regurgitating a fake smear story. Rather, some journalists think that it's the Climate Camp who are the ones supposedly controlling the media.
While most journalists have understood that we lived at Gogarburn for the week and that some people like some privacy, some seem intent on ignoring this point year after year. That means balancing our desire to work with the media and get our message across, and also ensuring that for the week of the camp we still have some kind of privacy. That's not just privacy to plan acts of potentially illegal civil disobedience, but also just to have a shower or eat or sleep without press intrusion. That's why we opened the camp to media between 1pm and 6pm: between lunch and our evening meal. In truth, this is an ongoing and difficult process: some activists are totally opposed to professional press, many welcome them with open arms. This is the result of the diversity we are often criticised for supposedly lacking. To deal with this range of opinions, in the weeks before the camp itself we try and find some kind of consensual agreement, something that everyone involved can live with.
There are photographers, videographers and bloggers who take part in the Climate Camps from start to finish, by coming along to meetings, helping make decisions, putting up tents and marquees on site. We collectively make the media we distribute, and share our footage with each other to help teach people about climate change and direct action all year round. Given the way the majority of the professional press have reported Monday's actions, it's no surprise that we try and find our own channels to get our message out there.
We have been criticised for describing journalists as "astoundingly unimaginative". These words were borrowed from George Monbiot's activist guide to the media, written over a decade ago. We hope one day that this proves to be untrue.
We ask readers who know anything about the spill to contact us with information. Perhaps collectively we can crowdsource what really happened. In the meantime the Camp for Climate Action media team is writing to the Press Complaints Commission about each of the articles that uncritically reported the mystery oil spill. Why? To force the media to carefully report the facts, not regurgitate police propaganda. (This is possible, the Guardian did accurately refer to the oil slick as a "police allegation".)
If that equates to not trusting the media and trying to control journalists then we're guilty. And we're happy to say so.
