I am intrigued by the Sun's coverage of the Leeds hospital controversy this morning, particularly by the second paragraph, which says the mother of the boy in the Mirror's front-page picture had complained to the press regulator.
I find this odd because Tom Newton Dunn's story doesn't name her, even though she was identified, interviewed and quoted at length in the Mirror, along with three pictures of her son.
I find this odd because Tom Newton Dunn's story doesn't name her, even though she was identified, interviewed and quoted at length in the Mirror, along with three pictures of her son.
Presumably she agreed to all that. On the other hand, the story was broken by Daniel Sheridan of the Yorkshire Evening Post, which is owned by Johnston Press - a rival stable to the Mirror's Reach owners. So maybe she didn't know she was going to be in the Mirror too?
Ipso confidentiality rules mean it will not disclose who has made a complaint. (I'm still waiting for it to confirm that there has been any complaint about the story.)
So if Dunn is right that she has complained, she must be the source of that information, directly or indirectly. In which case, why not name her? And why not make more of it than a single sentence?
Ipso confidentiality rules mean it will not disclose who has made a complaint. (I'm still waiting for it to confirm that there has been any complaint about the story.)
So if Dunn is right that she has complained, she must be the source of that information, directly or indirectly. In which case, why not name her? And why not make more of it than a single sentence?
The Sun is certainly right that Jeremy Corbyn tweeted the story and used it to attack the Tories. His post attracted thousands of replies, many hostile.
As Dunn reports, one of the earliest replies called it "repugnant". Although whether one Twitter user can be described as "social media" is a moot point.
You may note that "Voice of Reason" quoted someone called Sheree Jenner-Hepburn who had a good friend who was a senior nursing sister at Leeds hospital. This convinced Voice of Reason that the whole thing was a put-up job.
Quite a lot of people seem to have good friends who are senior nursing sisters in Leeds, who all used exactly the same form of words to debunk the story. This does not seem to have dented Dunn's belief in Voice of Reason as a quotable representative of Social Media.
As Dunn reports, one of the earliest replies called it "repugnant". Although whether one Twitter user can be described as "social media" is a moot point.
You may note that "Voice of Reason" quoted someone called Sheree Jenner-Hepburn who had a good friend who was a senior nursing sister at Leeds hospital. This convinced Voice of Reason that the whole thing was a put-up job.
Quite a lot of people seem to have good friends who are senior nursing sisters in Leeds, who all used exactly the same form of words to debunk the story. This does not seem to have dented Dunn's belief in Voice of Reason as a quotable representative of Social Media.
The story goes on to say that an ITV reporter (Joe Pike, who is not named) tried to "goad" the PM into commenting on the picture. Since when were reporters asking legitimate questions during an election campaign "goading"?
We now get the PM "stressing" that he wanted to push through Brexit so he could deal with issues like the NHS. Once his message has been duly relayed by The Sun, we are told that Johnson was "pressured" into a reaction. "It's a terrible photo..."
But there is no mention in this section of the story of the fact that the Prime Minister took the reporter's phone and put it in his pocket. How would a Sun journalist react to such a thing happening to them? Would they omit it from a story?
The piece continues: "Health Secretary Matt Hancock was met by leftwingers at the hospital..." It is apparently perfectly normal for ministers to be parachuted into scenes of controversy, but quite unusual and wrong for their opponents to go to the same : "It was initially claimed..." we now have two pars on the non-punch. Dunn doesn't say who made the claim - the Tories, and possibly Hancock himself - but says it turns out to have been wrong.
It was bad enough for Robert Peston and Laura Koenssberg to take this false allegation on face value and tweet it without checking (as Dunn himself did), but at least it was in the "heat of the battle". It's inclusion in this story, once the facts were known, seems odd if unless you want to a point about Tory sources misleading journalists - which The Sun doesn't.
Far from it. Dunn continues to accept and pass on information from the Conservatives as undoubted fact: "The Tories say Labour WhatsApp groups are urging flying picket style activists..." How do they know? Have they infiltrated the group?
"One text said 'we need to get people down there and kick off'." How does the Sun know? Has Dunn seen the message? Once again, if this is all the case and it has access to secret WhatsApp messages between Labour activists, how come the paper is making so little of it?
Finally, Johnson cancels a walkabout because 100 protesters are going to turn up to heckle. He says "I have noticed Labour activists have been turning up in intimidating ways to heckle. I don't find this consistent with Mr Corbyn's claim to want to take the acrimony and heat out of politics."
Meanwhile Corbyn appears in front of a crowd of a couple of thousand and posts a video of himself sitting by the fireside reading hostile responses to his social media posts.
We now get the PM "stressing" that he wanted to push through Brexit so he could deal with issues like the NHS. Once his message has been duly relayed by The Sun, we are told that Johnson was "pressured" into a reaction. "It's a terrible photo..."
But there is no mention in this section of the story of the fact that the Prime Minister took the reporter's phone and put it in his pocket. How would a Sun journalist react to such a thing happening to them? Would they omit it from a story?
The piece continues: "Health Secretary Matt Hancock was met by leftwingers at the hospital..." It is apparently perfectly normal for ministers to be parachuted into scenes of controversy, but quite unusual and wrong for their opponents to go to the same : "It was initially claimed..." we now have two pars on the non-punch. Dunn doesn't say who made the claim - the Tories, and possibly Hancock himself - but says it turns out to have been wrong.
It was bad enough for Robert Peston and Laura Koenssberg to take this false allegation on face value and tweet it without checking (as Dunn himself did), but at least it was in the "heat of the battle". It's inclusion in this story, once the facts were known, seems odd if unless you want to a point about Tory sources misleading journalists - which The Sun doesn't.
Far from it. Dunn continues to accept and pass on information from the Conservatives as undoubted fact: "The Tories say Labour WhatsApp groups are urging flying picket style activists..." How do they know? Have they infiltrated the group?
"One text said 'we need to get people down there and kick off'." How does the Sun know? Has Dunn seen the message? Once again, if this is all the case and it has access to secret WhatsApp messages between Labour activists, how come the paper is making so little of it?
Finally, Johnson cancels a walkabout because 100 protesters are going to turn up to heckle. He says "I have noticed Labour activists have been turning up in intimidating ways to heckle. I don't find this consistent with Mr Corbyn's claim to want to take the acrimony and heat out of politics."
Meanwhile Corbyn appears in front of a crowd of a couple of thousand and posts a video of himself sitting by the fireside reading hostile responses to his social media posts.
RSS Feed
