Read on Twitter
Last year, in full knowledge of Johnson’s dishonesty and other terrible flaws, The Times urged readers to vote for him.
It was an act of breathtaking cynicism. Johnson was never fit to govern.
This isn’t a change of heart. It’s the prelude to a change of rider to Gove.
It was an act of breathtaking cynicism. Johnson was never fit to govern.
This isn’t a change of heart. It’s the prelude to a change of rider to Gove.
Why Gove? Because he’s Murdoch’s man and because the government-guaranteed editorial independence of The Times from its owner was broken with the appointment of John Witherow as editor against the wishes of the paper’s own independent editorial board.
Why should internal shenanigans at a newspaper matter?
Because journalism conducted with integrity and vigour is our bulwark against government by criminals, rogues and despots.
When an editor answers to a proprietor rather than to their conscience and the readers we are lost.
Because journalism conducted with integrity and vigour is our bulwark against government by criminals, rogues and despots.
When an editor answers to a proprietor rather than to their conscience and the readers we are lost.
If you want evidence of just how low the Times has sunk, think on the mendacity of its latest about turn on Johnson.
They knew he wasn’t fit.
They knew he’d do us harm.
Tens of thousands have died needlessly because of his incompetence.
We’re facing ruin.
Yet they said nothing.
They knew he wasn’t fit.
They knew he’d do us harm.
Tens of thousands have died needlessly because of his incompetence.
We’re facing ruin.
Yet they said nothing.
That’s not serving our democracy.
That’s not serving the readers.
That’s not journalism.
I cared deeply about my work at the Times and had respect and affection for its many fine journalists.
Ceding editorial independence has made it just an instrument of its proprietor.
That’s not serving the readers.
That’s not journalism.
I cared deeply about my work at the Times and had respect and affection for its many fine journalists.
Ceding editorial independence has made it just an instrument of its proprietor.
You don’t need me to rehash the wretched history of Rupert Murdoch. But watch.
Watch as the Times puts its weight behind Gove. Like Johnson, he’s a man of low integrity and pitifully ability and utterly unfit to be PM. But he’s Murdoch’s man and the paper’s voice is Murdoch’s.
Watch as the Times puts its weight behind Gove. Like Johnson, he’s a man of low integrity and pitifully ability and utterly unfit to be PM. But he’s Murdoch’s man and the paper’s voice is Murdoch’s.
Ha! Right on cue. This is Times-speak for "Isn't it about time you made way for Michael...?"
A lot of comments on this thread. I've been reading them and thank you all.
Overwhelmingly you're not keen on Gove as the next PM Well, me neither! One of the questions to come up was about how much influence the Times - and thus Murdoch - still has? Here goes ...
Overwhelmingly you're not keen on Gove as the next PM Well, me neither! One of the questions to come up was about how much influence the Times - and thus Murdoch - still has? Here goes ...
In short, it's not a kingmaker but it still wields more soft power than you'd imagine. Here's a little experiment you can try for yourself. Pick a well-known Times journalist - or even the paper itself - and have a look at the blue ticks who follow them on Twitter. You'll find ..
... politicians and civil servants, heads of NGOs and industry, managers, academics, activists, broadcasters and other journalists, entertainers and celebs and sports folk. What is written in The Times can still have influence on how people see the world and of course when ....
... those people are themselves decision makers the wider impact can be substantial.
Now, this is all well and good when a paper's journalism is reliably honest, accurate and ethical. But what happens when that is compromised? I'll give you a Times example and I'm sure ...
Now, this is all well and good when a paper's journalism is reliably honest, accurate and ethical. But what happens when that is compromised? I'll give you a Times example and I'm sure ...
... you may be able to think of others.
The Times and Muslims: in recent years the paper has published a series of reports seriously flawed in fact and execution that degrade and demonise Muslims. It resulted in a string of apologies and a libel settlement ...
The Times and Muslims: in recent years the paper has published a series of reports seriously flawed in fact and execution that degrade and demonise Muslims. It resulted in a string of apologies and a libel settlement ...
... you can read the details here https://bylinetimes.com/2019/06/26/the-times-andrew-norfolk-and-the-muslim-foster-care-story-an-ugly-picture/
... and here https://bylinetimes.com/2020/07/23/another-anti-muslim-piece-in-murdochs-flagship-paper-ends-in-a-libel-settlement/
From the pattern of these smears it may be concluded that they were not just mistakes or innocent misjudgments but an editorial policy. The Times denies this. But the damage is done. The Times has spent some of its currency on suggesting to readers that Muslims are bad and ...
... that may somewhere down the line influence how someone acts, votes or makes policy.
This doesn't mean that all Times journalism is similarly bent, but it does degrade the credibility of honest journalists and thus our access to reliable, ethically produced news.
This doesn't mean that all Times journalism is similarly bent, but it does degrade the credibility of honest journalists and thus our access to reliable, ethically produced news.
Above all, understand that at a newspaper decisions such as to publish and then double down on stories that, as in our example, appear to degrade and demonise a minority for political ends are made at the top.
