Short thread on reporting and credibility:

Earlier today The Times ran a disheartening story claiming that Abu Dhabi-owned ADNEC would be charging the NHS for use of the ExCeL https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1246669044905844738">https://twitter.com/thesunday...

2

Some cited the report as evidence of venality, with the customary references to City.

Others questioned the veracity of these claims.

Others sought to justify charging for running costs.

But then the report appeared to be debunked: https://twitter.com/SocialM85897394/status/1246752998526681090">https://twitter.com/SocialM85...

3

Fake news!

Except, it was not fake.

The original agreement did include the specified charges, acknowledged in a press release earlier today.

Perhaps this change was known to Times reporters before they published; perhaps it was a response to negative publicity.

4

We do not know if The Times report was accurate at time of publication.

Maybe it was. Or maybe they knew of the amended contract details but opted for scurrilous content.

The problem here is believability and and a proven credibility gap. https://twitter.com/Andy_C_Dixon/status/1082927618758987776">https://twitter.com/Andy_C_Di...

5

This is one facet of an increasingly complex issue: what is fake; and what is not?

As a contrast to this uncertainty, note how quickly some journalists were to voice contempt; and compare with the measured, some might say restrained, criticism of LFC yesterday.

/End

*PS*

I& #39;ve seen many accounts with big platforms, like Piers Morgan, condemning Abu Dhabi on the basis of that Times piece

Nothing inherently wrong in that. It& #39;s & #39;possible& #39; they were acting in good faith.

But if they do not now post retractions they are bad faith actors.