The Times, and its Sunday edition, presents itself as Britain's flagship moderate newspaper.
It is in fact a rampantly racist and bigoted newspaper, which its leading figures such as @DAaronovitch deny but should be held accountable for.
Thread.
The Times claimed that a Christian child was "forced into Muslim foster care".
This was based on false claims.
The Times constantly publishes articles claiming anti-Muslim hatred is a "fiction".
Imagine a newspaper published an article headlined "Antisemitism is a fiction to shut down debate."
Melanie Phillips was forced to defend herself after far right terrorist Anders Breivik - who murdered dozens of young socialists on the grounds they were complicit with "Islamisation" - cited her extensively in his manifesto.
That didn't cause either Melanie Phillips or The Times to pause for thought.
Indeed, The Times has been forced to pay damages because of its anti-Muslim bigotry.
The Times is publishing articles demanding travellers have their ethnic minority stripped away from them and suffer a "relentless squeeze" on their lives instead.
The Times almost obsessively targets trans people in the most inflammatory way possible.
The Times is an extremist newspaper masquerading as moderate and "liberal". It's a case study in how bigotry and racism is acceptable and mainstream in this country - and until it's challenged, nothing will change.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Gaza genocide deniers like @DavidHirsh should explain, clearly and plainly:
Why have pre-eminent scholars - including in Israel - who dedicate their lives to studying genocide and indeed the Holocaust independently concluded that Israel has committed genocide?
How could academics specialising in the study of genocide get such an unbelievably extreme conclusion so wrong?
If indeed all these genocide scholars have somehow got this wrong, would they not have arrived at this conclusion on the basis of unbelievably damning evidence?
Political journalism isn’t about allowing voters to make informed decisions, thus enhancing democracy.
It’s about setting and policing the parameters of political debate - determining everything from what’s considered extreme, to what’s considered scandalous.
In practise, most British political journalism reduces politics to a character driven Westminster soap opera, based on who is up or down.
But this is itself highly ideological, because it’s based on embedding what’s seen as “serious” and politically acceptable.