Who leaked the Manchester bomb scoop?

For journalists, being presented with a scoop is hard, if not impossible, to resist. The New York Times reporter who was sent pictures of the shattered bomb parts from the Manchester terror attack would have jumped up with excitement when they landed on his computer screen. No newspaper in the UK had published such pictures. So it was a mighty scoop for the New York Times, and they went ahead and printed them in the paper after, what a spokesman for the illustrious newspaper said, due consideration had been given to the potential damaging impact of publication. I somehow doubt there was a long debate. Publishing the photos would put the New York Times ahead of the game. That's what newspapers like to do. I wonder if any of the editorial executives questioned whether this would be a serious breach of confidence or that it would damage intelligence-sharing relations between the US and the UK, or that they would upset the families of those children killed and injured. From my experience as a very long-time journalist, someone in the newsroom would have said: "Well if we don't publish them, someone else will." And another person would have argued:"If we fail to publish these pictures we could lose our special source. He might go to a rival newspaper. Our scoops from Manchester could dry up." And perhaps another executive, such as the picture editor, might have said: "They're just photos of bits of bomb. It's not like we're publishing pictures of dead children." Everyone would have nodded at that and the decision was made. Publish! I can sympathise with all those arguments and I understand why the New York Times decided to publish them. But none of them predicted the fury it would cause in the UK and particularly in Manchester where British reporters are obliged to follow certain rules of reporting, including not writing anything which might have a damaging impact on an ongoing police investigation. The earlier leak, on CBS, that identified the bomber - again before any British media organisation and several days before the British police wanted the name to be released - meant that family, friends and associates of the 22-year-old suicide bomber, and the other members of the terror network responsible for the attack, were tipped off that the police would be on their trail. Perhaps the bombmaker himself was able to escape as a result. Now that, even more than the pictures of the bomb components, would be seriously damaging to the police investigation. No wonder intelligence-sharing on the Manchester bombing between the UK and the US has been suspended. I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that the leaker of both the name of the bomber and the pictures came from a source or sources in the FBI, not the CIA or the White House or the National Security Council. The FBI is a huge organisation and journalists develop sources more easily in the FBI than in the CIA. The CIA is a far more secretive organisation, and I know - although I can't say why I know - that the CIA was being absolutely straight about questions raised with them about the Manchester bombing. Their response to all such questions was that the agency deferred to the UK authorities In other words, no comment. So it's more likely that someone in the FBI leaked the information. The British police share their confidential information with the FBI, as a law enforcement partner, not the CIA, although both organisations are well represented at the US embassy in London. The material from the Manchester police and MI5 and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism command would have been passed to the US embassy on secure links for the FBI and CIA to disseminate to their headquarters in the US. So a lot of people would have known the identity of the bomber and seen the pictures of the bomb components. It only takes one person in the FBI with access to such information to ring the media. Donald Trump has vowed to hunt down and punish the leaker. But he or she will never be found. But the leaker might now think twice about breaching confidencies again, which means no more scoops for the New York Times!