“Are you rich enough to bid for a City AM internship?” sneers Roy Greenslade at Media Guardian this morning, reporting that the business freesheet is auctioning off work experience to the highest bidder. “Open to all who have plenty of capital,” sniffs the Guardian. Bravely.
It’s an odd thing to get upset about since City AM’s initiative is for charity. The money raised is being given to Maggie’s cancer centres, which offer support to cancer victims. Even odder that Greenslade would attack newspapers charging for work experience, given just last year the Guardian charged £600 for a summer work experience placement. The difference? City AM are giving the money to charity, the Guardian kept the cash for themselves…
Roy Greenslade of the loss-making Guardian keeping Facebookisation in perspective…
“The Facebookisation of news has the potential to destabilise democracy by, first, controlling what we read and, second, by destroying the outlets that provide that material.”
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) April 12, 2016
The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade, a man unlikely to be part of a right-wing media plot to protect a Tory Cabinet minister, dismisses as “conspiracy theory” Hacked Off’s wild claims that the press covered up the Whittingdale story. The pro-Leveson brigade scream intrusion when tabloids reveal married MPs’ affairs, then cry conspiracy when they decide not to write about a single man and his lover. Whitto will be embarrassed by the revelations but he was a single man in a consensual relationship who has done nothing wrong. Brian Cathcart and Hacked Off have hilariously jumped the shark live on TV…
One man alone had the inside track on mounting rumours earlier in the week that the FT might be sold.
Here is Media Guardian’s eminent and well-informed Roy Greenslade on Monday:
“Pearson to sell the Financial Times? I really don’t think so… How many times down the years have I read that rumour? And how many times must I dismiss it as speculative nonsense?”
Three days later…
There’s a fine line between being contrarian and printing b***ocks.
“Tory press ignores, or underplays, polls putting Labour ahead” screams Roy Greenslade over at Media Guardian today:
“Labour’s positive poll ratings get precious little coverage in the Tory press. It must have been a day for the blue newspapers to bury bad news.”
Lest we forget the Guardian conveniently left off of the ComRes and YouGov polls that showed the Tories ahead off of their splash today, because it did not fit their narrative…
Over a period of six months, Media Guardian campaigned to stitch up the Sunday Mirror, consistently falling short of the journalistic standards it sets for others. In an extraordinary series of factually incorrect articles, Roy Greenslade alleged that “at least seven other Tory MPs were also offered similar lures” in “a giant trawl“. It is completely untrue to suggest that we “offered similar lures” to a “giant” number of MPs. If we had only tweeted at Brooks Newmark he would have seen the sting coming a mile off. The account followed and tweeted at many MPs, male and female, as well as celebrities and news organisations. Prior to the investigation we had a specific tip-off about Newmark. We only ever had a private conversation with one MP – Newmark – and it was instigated by him.
Media Guardian claimed on multiple occasions that “Wickham approached the Mail on Sunday’s political editor, Simon Walters”, and that “the MoS was concerned about the methodology employed to obtain the story, believing that it amounted to entrapment and also involved a fishing expedition”. We can now reveal this to be 100% untrue. Alex Wickham never spoke to anyone from the MoS about the story. A very brief conversation was had between Paul Staines and the MoS, where the detail was not discussed and it was agreed that the story would not work for the mid-market paper on the grounds of taste – Lady Rothermere’s taste. Despite the innuendo and factually incorrect reporting of Media Guardian, at no point was the methodology ever considered by the MoS as the prime stumbling block to running the story. Whatever may have been subsequently briefed.
Greenslade then wrote in the Standard that “the net had been spread wide in the hope of a juicy catch”, concluding “It is impossible to disentangle the public interest from the methodology. Given that we have a code of practice, we cannot argue that the end justifies the means”. Again, we had a specific tip-off about Newmark, and IPSO has found that the methods employed did not breach the code of practice.
Much of Media Guardian’s error-strewn reporting can be explained by their reliance on unfounded innuendos made by less popular parts of the Twitterphere. Peter Jukes claimed “there are many abuses being perpetrated here“, accusing us of “fishing others”, and again suggesting that two other newspapers “knocked back the subterfuge”. Our position has now been vindicated by IPSO.
A Buzzfeed report named a number of MPs with whom our account had interacted, implying they were targeted: “If you’re a middle-aged Conservative MP and a young attractive researcher starts taking an interest in you on Twitter, then be careful”. These MPs were not targeted, Buzzfeed’s irresponsible report was factually incorrect and responsible for much of the bad reporting that followed.
Finally those doyens of press accuracy at Hacked Off also made a series of untrue allegations about the story. They suggested there was no “prima facie evidence that any of the six MPs approached were engaging in inappropriate conduct on the internet”. This is clearly incorrect and the IPSO ruling has found that to be the case. They concluded: “There appears to have been nothing to justify the use of subterfuge by the freelance reporter”. This was always disputed by us and the Sunday Mirror, because we were in possession of the facts and we have now been vindicated by IPSO.
See also: Not So Pronto IPSO