There is nothing new in what the press is doing to #MeghanAndHarry, though the scale and venom are amazing. They did the same to Caroline Flack – also in the full knowledge that she had mental health problems. There are countless victims. They – and we – deserve better. 1/5
Journalism is supposed to be a force for good, and if we are seeing anything that gives ground for hope today it is those few journalists who are stepping back and saying 'Not in my name'. 2/5
For far too long the 'thugs with press cards' have been indulged by journalists with better instincts. For too long cruelty, bigotry and misogyny have been tolerated, defended and treated as if they were equals to honesty and fairness in the world of journalism. 3/5
The price has been intolerably high. Trust in journalism in this country is at disastrously low levels, and good journalists suffer needlessly from this. The very idea of honest journalism has become a joke to be sniggered at. 4/5
If some good can come from the repellent episode now unfolding, I hope it will be that many more honest journalists will stand up and say they have had enough, and that they will no longer defend or turn a blind eye to the indefensible. 5/5
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Judgment in the latest stage of the breach of privacy and copyright case brought by Meghan, Duchess of Sussex against Associated Newspapers will be handed down tomorrow, Thursday, at 4pm. A short thread on what can happen. #MeghanAndHarry 1/5
It's an application by the Duchess for 'summary judgment', seeking to cut short proceedings on the grounds that, her lawyers claim, Associated's case is so weak there's no need for a trial. 2/5
The judge can find for or against her on both claims (privacy & copyright) or give a partial judgment, 1 in her favour and 1 against. If she wins both it's over. If she wins neither, that is not an overall defeat for her; it means the whole case will proceed to trial. 3/5
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…
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