This article doesn't have a lot of information but my first instinct is to ask: if children are dying like flies and you are a reporter then the best way to confirm this to the British govt, to MI6 and to everyone would be to report on it.
My second thought was: I wonder in the future how many people in positions of wealth/power will come out as having worked for GCHQ/MI6 given this seems to be a growth "industry" in the UK.
He was in Nigeria for the BBC, and his Wikipedia entry has this quote about when he asked to extend his stay to continue reporting on the war:
"I was told quite bluntly, then, 'it is not our policy to cover this war.' This was a period when the Vietnam War was front-page headlines almost every day, regarded broadly as an American cock-up, and this particularly British cock-up in Nigeria was not going to be covered. I smelt news management. I don't like news management. So I made a private vow to myself: 'you may, gentlemen, not be covering it, but I'm going to cover it.' So I quit and flew out there, and stayed there for most of the next two years."
So it would appear he tried.
And certainly, in that light being asked by MI6 to actually confirm the truth seems like something he'd have welcomed under the circumstances as another way of having the information acknowledged. And, incidentally, just the kind of things an intelligence service should be engaged in...
I think the article states that he did report on it for his newspaper. But MI6 needed proper confirmation, rather than through the lens of a possibly politically biased newspaper - especially when the government was denying the facts themselves.
More broadly, the article ducks a very serious question: How did his MI6 work compromise his journalism? Were stories withheld from the public, modified, or even falsified to suit MI6? Inevitably there would be conflicts - you can't serve two masters.
From the article: Forsyth said he saw "no harm" in confirming the truth that "children were dying like flies" in Biafra.
Yes, it's wonderful to be a journalist in a conflict zone where each side assumes you're an agent for whichever Western power is propping up the puppet regime/insurgency. And they have grounds for the suspicion.
What is the point of this sarcasm? It's not even clear at whom it's directed: are you suggesting that Forsyth was doing something wrong by reporting humanitarian issues when requested to do so by his government?
My second thought was: I wonder in the future how many people in positions of wealth/power will come out as having worked for GCHQ/MI6 given this seems to be a growth "industry" in the UK.