If Paul Dacre is made chair of Ofcom he will be responsible for standards in UK broadcasting. So how is he doing in his current job as Editor-in-Chief of Associated Newspapers? Well, Associated is currently losing legal actions over bad journalism at an extraordinary rate. 1/8
Today it settled a case brought by Prince Harry in which the Mail on Sunday falsely accused him of turning his back on responsibilities to the Marines. This could have been avoided if they had simply put the allegations to the Prince, but they didn't. 2/8 bylineinvestigates.com/mail/2021/2/1/…
Newspapers in the group, and MailOnline have also settled or lost a string of other cases in recent weeks, including:
Paying significant damages to a former Labour candidate for falsely suggesting she assisted Holocaust seniors. 3/8 skwawkbox.org/2021/01/10/exc…
Earlier, Associated had lost a court case and paid £83,000 damages to a Sussex man for breach of confidence and misuse of private information by MailOnline. 4/8
Not to forget allegations against a couple of bullying, harassment, discrimination and 'leaking classified information' – all of which the Mail on Sunday had to admit were untrue. The statement in open court was a week ago. 7/8
This catalogue of wrongdoing over just 10 weeks is probably not complete. Now, no one could suggest that the editor-in-chief was personally responsible for each of them, but Dacre, as boss, surely has to take some of the responsibility. It does not augur well for Ofcom. 8/8
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A Home Office report into 'grooming gangs' says 'it is likely that no one community or culture is uniquely predisposed to offending'. So where does that leave @thetimes and its rogue reporter Andrew Norfolk? 1/6 bylinetimes.com/2020/12/17/hom…
The Times insisted there was 'overwhelming evidence' of 'a deeply rooted pattern of criminal behaviour with a clear ethnic component'. But 2 years of effort by Home Office officials (plainly under pressure to prove the paper right) produced no credible evidence at all. 2/6
So there is no 'clear ethnic component'. No one can claim it is disproportionately 'a Muslim thing'. Reporter Andrew Norfolk's creation, beloved of the extreme right, turns out to be just as flawed as his discredited 'Christian girl forced into Muslim foster care' story. 3/6
Johnson, Gove, Hancock, Raab etc have never shown any wish to be accountable for anything. (Re Cummings, for example.) In the case of Covid they will surely move heaven and earth to avoid effective, independent scrutiny. 2/
And since it is governments that set up inquiries they have the power simply to block an inquiry into the Covid response. You might say the demand from the public will be too strong. Well maybe, but they have already shown significant willingness to defy the public will. 3/
The Sunday Times's alarming 'sleepwalking into a pandemic' report says an inquiry into what went wrong is 'inevitable'. But we need a proper inquiry – open, impartial, with full powers and with a guarantee its report will be published. And that's not inevitable, as we know. 1/
Governments can rig these things. And they can bury them. We can't let that happen with #Covid19. We need the truth about preparedness and response – if only because we will surely face more pandemics in the future and lessons need to be learned. 2/
There is a proposal on the table for a timely, impartial, powerful public inquiry outside government control. It comes from Lord Kerslake, who chaired the Manchester Arena bombing inquiry. It needs support. Political leaders should commit to it now. 3/
With #coronavirus#COVID19, journalism confronts a historic challenge. It's a matter of life and death. More than ever, therefore, journalists have an obligation to inform the public accurately and responsibly. More than ever, people need trustworthy information. 1/6
Put it another way: the requirements of readers and viewers must come first. Nothing else matters – not politics, not agendas, not rivalries, not sales, not clicks, not old scores, not careers. Because getting it wrong may kill. 2/6
This does *not* mean that journalists should slavishly promote government policy. Even if that policy was in line with consensus it would have to be questioned. But given that UK policy is aberrant in international terms, journalists must force ministers to justify it. 3/ 6
A short thread on bad royal journalism. One of the 'givens' of the reporting on #meganandharry has been that they 'blindsided' the Queen by failing to give her notice of their plans. This allegation seems to have come from unnamed 'palace sources'...
While this was certainly news, it was only a claim made anonymously on behalf of one party in the story. It was not a fact. Fairness demanded that the claim should be put to the Sussexes and only if they confirmed it would it be right for journalists to state it as fact...
It can't be argued that because it came from the palace it was holy writ and must be true. First, it apparently came from unnamed sources unwilling to take responsibility for what they said, and second, on many other occasions the press is happy to question a palace line...
A general warning on this day of #HarryandMeghan fuss: take everything you read that comes from the UK national press with a pinch of salt. They are not impartial or honest observers in this; they are determined to break this royal marriage to a woman of colour... (Thread)
We are told that the couple refuses to accept legitimate scrutiny, but what they have faced has not been legitimate. It has been a sustained campaign of vilification routinely relying on innuendo and falsehood and often laced with racism...
We are also led to believe that rough stuff from the UK press is only to be expected, and it's part of the royal job to accept it. Don't believe it. Real journalism isn't about dishing out rough stuff. It's about truth and fairness. No journalist anywhere should be asserting...