,
10 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Today @thetimes has responded to the publication of our report challenging the methods and motivation of its chief investigative reporter, Andrew Norfolk. #TimesUnmasked It is remarkably feeble (THREAD) 
Although our report is about Norfolk's journalistic standards, the editorial makes no defence of those either in general or in detail. #TimesUnmasked Here is a summary of our case 2/10: byline.com/column/68/arti…
Norfolk stands accused of presenting three series of high-profile articles portraying Muslims as threatening, all of which were fundamentally wrong. @thetimes can only offer bluster and distraction in response. 3/10
On the first point, our report is not political. It is about standards of journalism. We provide a mountain of evidence showing that, where Norfolk has been concerned, those standards have been very low indeed. #TimesUnmasked 5/10
On the second point, (a) IPSO is a sham 'regulator' under the thumb of the big press companies and (b) it has taken great care to avoid even considering most of the really grave problems we highlight. IPSO has been useless in these cases. #TimesUnmasked 6/10
Here is the link to our report. hackinginquiry.org/wp-content/upl… Please read it in full, and if you know any readers of @thetimes please draw it to their attention. 7/10
It seems that @thetimes is unable to answer the detailed criticisms and questions. How did a star reporter get three stories seriously wrong? Why did he rely on dodgy sources? Why does he use quotations in way that journalism students are told never to do? 8/10
When he talks to experts and they tell him his story is a dud, why does he ignore them? When he writes about Muslims, why doesn't he talk to Muslims? (He might learn something.) #TimesUnmasked 9/10
Finally, we ask the Times to instigate a credible, independent inquiry into Norfolk's work. If they are confident there is no problem, why don't they take up the challenge? #TimesUnmasked (End of thread)
