I don't usually do threads but hey, here's a thread about Madeleine McCann, Princess Diana, the Daily Express, JK Rowling and Pink News. And even a bit of Winston Churchill.

For many years I worked for the Daily Express. I was a feature writer and also, on and off, theatre critic, TV critic and obits editor. Like my colleagues, many of whom remain friends, I tried to uphold my own standards even as the paper's owner turned it into a laughing stock.

The laughing-stock status was deserved. Most people didn't buy or read the paper but they did see the front page on news stands. As @haveigotnews never tired of pointing out, there really was a rotation of stories about Princess Diana, Madeleine McCann and the weather.

I was embarrassed by these stories, but I also clung to a belief that perhaps the paper had an inside track and its coverage might one day be vindicated. The paper's owner was close to Dodi al-Fayed's father, so maybe we really did have insider dish on the Diana case.

Likewise the Madeleine McCann story. The editor and proprietor were accused of exploiting the tragedy to sell papers, and it was hard to argue against that, but their coverage was so obsessive, they must have developed real specialist expertise, right?

Wrong. 11 years after Diana's death, a £6.5m inquest ruled that the tragedy was caused by alcohol, bad driving (by chauffeur & paps) & failure to wear seat-belts. The Express meekly reported the verdict. No push-back, no counter-arguments. There were none. It had all been hot air

Likewise with Madeleine McCann. Somewhere along the way, the paper accused Maddy's parents of responsibility for her death. They successfully sued, and the paper had to pay £550k and issue a grovelling apology. There had been no inside track, no specialist expertise.

Why am I talking about all this? Well, because I get a strong rush of déjà vu when I see Pink News' coverage of trans issues, especially in the week that's just gone.

It's meant to be an LGBT news site, but it focuses obsessively, to the exclusion of virtually everything else, on the demands of trans activists, and on witch-hunting anyone who has the temerity not to comply – especially if they are female.

As @Glinner has pointed out, in the 5 days since June 7th, they wrote 40 articles about @jk_rowling, 37 with her name in the headline. Not even in the depths of its obsession with the McCanns was the Express so stalkery.
https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1271382166333804545?s=20

I don't like Pink News' coverage. To me, it's nasty, vindictive and misleading. Deep down, however, a little bit of me has always believed that, with this level of obsession, they must also have expertise, even if it's on the other side of the argument to me.

So when the editor of Pink News responded “What. the actual. FUCK. no….. they can’t…..?” to #JKRowling's claim that anyone can get a Gender Recognition Certificate without hormones or surgery, I confess it gave me pause... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270759683205316608.html

Had I somehow, by paying too much attention to the International Network of Powerful Lesbians [© Pink News], come to believe something that wasn't true? Has the GC side been overstating the case, and I've uncritically swallowed it?

Actually no. @jk_rowling was quite right. Here's @FactCheck on the subject https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-rowling-right-that-hormones-or-surgery-not-required-for-legal-gender-change

And here, underneath this headline, which is still live…

…is the grudging correction that Pink News has since made to its story

So there you are. The editor of Pink News doesn't actually understand the fundamentals of the issue he treats as the only story in town. All that "what the actual fuck" derision? That was basically his reaction to being presented with a fact he ought to have known.

This will be obvious to many people already, but it's proof positive that this media emperor has no clothes. It's the Daily Express and Madeleine McCann/Princess Diana all over again.

If you've read this far, thanks for bearing with. This thread may even be longer than one of @TwisterFilm's (although I'll try not to make a habit of it). Just one final thing…

Since Winston Churchill is in the news, do you remember the time, a couple of years ago, when a young journalist on the Independent denounced Gary Oldman for thanking Churchill at the Oscars? It caused such a massive wave of anger and derision that he had to protect his account.

You'll never guess where that guy is working now.