On Friday afternoon as former Cambridge professor Jason Arday lay dead, The Times published another article mocking him.
Soon after, as news of his death broke, the article (published here) disappeared. The print edition (below) had a different headline and no mention of Jason Arday by the time it hit the newsstands.
Given the relentless news coverage before his death, removing and amending this piece without comment or explanation speaks volumes.
Whether those involved admit any fault, this action shows how some stepped back from the furore they fed. And well they might. There’s a sense that, this time, the pack crossed a line.
Hounded by the pack
This Times piece was one of more than 40 articles it published between 24 July when news of the plagiarism row first broke and the time of his death on Friday.
The Telegraph covered the story 43 times, more frequently than they wrote about Nigel Farage’s finances.
Newscord’s research shows there were 249 articles written about him in 22 days. That level of coverage for an academic’s mistakes dwarfs the attention most politicians, leading business figures or criminals expect to get.
When resigning on 5 August, his statement said he’d reached ‘the limits of what any person could expect to endure’. Friends said on the BBC yesterday morning that they warned journalists covering the story about his fragility. Despite these warnings, the coverage ramped up.
It’s not a time to rush to judgement, Andy Burnham said in response to media questions at the weekend. The Sunday Times’ leader agreed, adding that questions need answering. It should add some about its own conduct to the list.
Questions to answer
I’ve thought a lot about how Jason Arday felt after losing his job, while facing a media onslaught. Trapped in a storm, as outlets labelled him ‘Professor Plagiarism’ and held him up as a poster boy for their pet hates of DEI and woke capture of elite institutions.
They even used AI detectors to stand up a story about his resignation statement, written under the most extreme pressure. Did they bother to Google whether AI checkers are reliable? I complained to The Times about that story.
I am sure, in the face of public anger, that some journalists will argue the stories pursued in recent weeks were legitimate and in the public interest. The media are entitled to ask questions. Allegations surrounding Jason Arday justified some of the reporting. They didn’t justify all of it.
As I read the coverage and spoke to others about their views on this, new questions about media conduct emerge that go beyond technicalities.
- When does legitimate journalist enquiry cross the line and become hounding and harassment?
- At what point does public interest journalism become a public order issue?
- How do you fairly balance the media’s right of enquiry with the public’s right to be left alone?
- How much is just too much?
A media that regulates itself shows little sign of wanting to ask these questions, let alone answer them. Maybe reopening the Leveson Inquiry is the best way of having a full conversation about how we get the media to act with decency.
Without it, we’ll soon see the pack move onto the next hit job without reflection on why we need change. Just quietly remove stories that crossed the line, accuse those who want a better media of censorship and leave others to pick up the pieces.
As I said elsewhere, this places the onus on all of us to spot pile-ons when they happen and step back from them. I am so sorry that I didn’t do more than complain to the media as this disaster unfolded.
In my view, this is part of a hardening of public discourse, which at its worst crushes those on the receiving end. I have seen the everyday impact of this when good people avoid public discussions for fear of attack.
The message to those in underrepresented groups from this tragedy is implicit: know your place, don’t make a mistake, or we’ll come for you. I feel the chill this brings, and stand with those who are angry over this.
Journalists have a right to ask questions. We also have a right to expect them to behave with decency and care. They didn’t in this case. It’s not anti-journalism to think this.