HOW A ‘LOW CONFIDENCE’ INTELLIGENCE REPORT ON THE IRAN BOMBING HAD A MASSIVE MEDIA IMPACT

TOP LINE

This week, a classified military intelligence assessment about the impact of US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities was leaked to the media. The source(s) of the leak is under investigation.

While the preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency or DIA, the Pentagon’s intelligence branch, was deemed “low confidence,”  it had a massive media impact.  First reported by CNN, the preliminary assessment was picked up globally.

The DIA report was a legitimate subject for journalists.  But many of the initial reports lacked full context on the reliability of the underlying data.  

The assessment’s “low confidence” designation means the intelligence was likely questionable and the underlying sources may be problematic.

A failure to provide full context in this case may be explained by a lack of journalistic curiosity, a reporter’s inexperience with intelligence assessment language as well as limited information from sources.

It may also reflect personal bias.

(Defense Secretary and Chairman Joint Chiefs Photo Credit: Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

DEEP DIVE

I’ve covered the intelligence community since 2001. I was the first national TV reporter assigned to the Homeland Security beat in October 2001, four weeks after the 9/11 al Qaeda terrorist attacks killed nearly 3000 Americans.

While it is understandable that many journalists are not familiar with the language of intelligence assessments, the lack of context in this week’s reporting seemed to overstate the analytic significance. 

My training is that in a fast moving, competitive story like this one, it can make sense to tell your viewer and reader what you don’t know.  

For example, you don’t have access to the full intelligence report for an independent review nor do you know the degree of confidence in the assessment’s findings. 

The DIA report was preliminary, written less than two days after the US bombing, and labeled “low confidence.”  In intelligence circles, “low confidence” means the assessment should be treated with caution and skepticism.  In my two decades covering intelligence, a preliminary assessment is like an early snapshot which will likely evolve as the dust settles.

It goes without saying that the reporting would not have had the same impact, if the initial characterization of the Iran assessment was “low confidence.”

CNN reported…

FREE PREVIEW 🔓️ 

Catherine Herridge Reports Is Backed By Readers Like You

Our team relies on your subscriptions. No corporations. No pressure from advertisers. We can follow the facts wherever they lead.

Please consider supporting our independent, fact based journalism. Your support makes it possible!

…that the US strikes “did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it.”

According to intelligence guides posted online by the US government, the term low confidence “generally means that the information is scant, questionable, or very fragmented, so it is difficult to make solid analytic inferences; it could also mean that the IC (intelligence community) has significant concerns about or problems with the sources.”

By contrast, a high confidence report is as close as the intelligence community gets to an assessment that is ‘take it to the bank’ material.  It  “generally indicates that the IC’s (intelligence community) judgments are based on high-quality information or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to develop a solid judgment.”

The Trump administration criticized the media coverage of the DIA assessment as fawning, and overstating the report’s significance.   

Many journalists relied on sources with’ knowledge of’ or ‘familiar’ with the assessment. It seems likely the sources did not initially volunteer to reporters that the Iran assessment was deemed to be “low confidence.”  This is a very important point. An experienced national security reporter should have known to ask about confidence levels and whether the assessment was deemed low, medium or high confidence.

The Trump administration accused journalists of running with the preliminary assessment because of their own personal bias against the White House and the President’s decision to bomb Iran.

The remainder of this newsletter is for paid subscribers only.

Catherine Herridge Reports: Telling the stories we could not tell before. Where the facts have a power all their own.

✅ Whistleblower investigations that demand government accountability and get results with long overdue benefits awarded to US service members.

✅ Analysis that is fact driven and unafraid to challenge the prevailing narrative.

✅ Unlimited access to our online archive where you can read previous editions of the newsletter.