Thread by @DrEvanHarris

A thread showing how, as The Sun's "confidential source" Rebecca Vardy lost the #WagathaChristie case, the "newspaper" (a generous description) itself took one of a helluva kicking in the judgment. NB Schadenfreude warning! 1/

You can tell that The Sun knew that it and its journalistic standards suffered withering criticism by the fact that, in 1000s of words of coverage, Murdoch's rag doesn't mention The Sun once! That's despite being named by the judge over 125 times in 290 paragraphs. 2/

A real feat of misleading court reporting. Using distortion, low cunning & the rare quality of *having no shame*. The case is all about Vardy (via her agent) selling stories to The Sun. Yet The Sun reports "stories were leaked to *the press*" & "selling stories to *the media*" 3/

The term "the press" is used in total about 25 terms (so one fifth as often as The Sun is referenced) and most of those are general references, and there are 5 general mentions of "the media". 125 mentions of "The Sun" but, again, none in The Sun's court report. 4/

At the start of the judgment (§4), the Judge sets out the specific meaning that Coleen Rooney must show is true. It includes The Sun. Not mentioned in the Sun's pages of coverage. 5/

A key part of the case progression was the Vardy's attempts to bring Sun journalists to court to state she was not the source (§§22-24). Her attempts failed, and backfired as the Judge drew inferences from the "no comment" positions adopted by most, compared to a flat denial. 6/

The Sun was the only newspaper not to mention The Sun's starring role in the case, including the position of its journalists as to denying or "neither confirm or deny" that Vardy (or her agent) was the source. 7/

The Sun's journalists mainly decided that they would not assist the Court in answering the main question, relying on their right not to divulge a confidential source (tho' some might say that source protection should not extend to cheap private gossip. Watergate this is not). 8/

Of course, News International (NI) had no such sanctimony when 10 years ago - facing criminal investigation for corrupt payments to public servants - it sold out The Sun's paid police sources. The sources went to jail, the junior staff went on trial & NI execs got fat bonuses 9/

At §93 of the Judgment, Coleen Rooney is cited as exposing how some celebrity journalism works (as a con on the readers). The Sun chooses not to cover this. Mind you nor does the Mail or Mirror. 10/

In the next para (§94) Vardy admits one of these secret set-ups. Note how that The Sun misleads its readers by saying Miss X is *spotted* leaving the hospital, and how the pap and the celeb split the payment. Everyone wins except the readers who are taken for fools. 11/

At §117 The Sun gets a mention by Coleen Rooney in what was described as her first warning to the unknwon leaker. Weirdly, the "rag of a paper" has never - in the reams of reporting of #WagathaChristie - referred to it. /12

At §123, The Sun gets another mention is a key document. Unfathomably the newspaper has never reported the contents of the 2nd warning post. Why so reticent? /13

§§146-157 of the judgment shows how a pap agency, Mrs Vardy & The Sun conspired to snatch a group photo of the "WAGs" at the 2018 World Cup in Russia. The FA didn't want this as it distracted the team. The Sun claimed to support the team but in fact did not care. Hypocrites. /14

At §175 the Judge cites an email from the Rooney's chief adviser, Paul Stretford, to a junior member of the PR team, which describes The Sun in suitable terms. Never mentioned in The Sun's reports (nor in those of any of its supposed rivals, who swim in a similar swamp) /15

At §177, the Judge cites Coleen's importantt 3rd warning post. Again, inexplicably not mentioned by The Sun. /16

At §§178-9, the Judge using polite language states her view, based on the evidence, that The Sun basically made up details of a story (see "speculative" and "guesswork" at the end of each paragraph). The Sun has not even tried or bothered to defend its journalistic standards /17

The judge makes same point, using the word "concocted" at §278. The Sun normally denies making stuff up and claims to have a source (always confidential, conveniently enough) for all the shit they concoct. But they don't even try to defend having been duped by Rooney here /18

The Judge's actual decision paragraph at the end - the verdict - mentions The Sun prominently, twice. But, by some accident of sub-editing, this key section never makes it into The Sun's coverage. The newspaper is a parody. But a vicious and pernicious parody. 19/

Final thoughts. 1) Rebecca Vardy (and Caroline Watt) should be left alone (and I've sought to do so). 2) The S*n deserves no such sympathy.
3) The Judgement shows how noble & smart Coleen Rooney has been.
And why Scousers never buy The S*n. #JFT97 20/20

This thread has gone viral as - even for those not interested in the #WagathaChristie cast list or legal "drama" - it sheds light on the conduct of The S*n (& wider tabloid showbiz journalism) & its failure (compare BBC) to report on itself. Judgment here bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/…