The aftermath of my blog post on Monday regarding the biography on a parliamentary candidate put out by the Sutton and Cheam Guardian has been an education; highlighting the difference between the newspaper world and the Blogosphere.

Martin Cullip, the candidate, runs a business specialising in transport for severely disabled children and adults.

I hardly need to point out to professional journalists the sensitivity of such a business in an age when the media have been complicit in persuading the general population that there is a paedophile under every lamppost.

Would the media shy away from exposing the sexual fetishes of a person who had contact with vulnerable children? Goodness no. They will search out such information and flame it across their front page – even when they have taken it from a web site eight years old.

Last month, Gary Anderson, a journalist on the Daily Mirror did just that. Gareth Mead was the £90,000 a year boss of social housing and homeless in Hammersmith and Fulham. He deals with a lot of vulnerable people. So Gary Anderson felt fully entitled to say that:

‘but at night he poses in front of a swastika in full SS regalia and tells other lovers of the vile fetish:”Gas the Jews and Wogs”

As Reuben, on the Third Estate blog has pointed out, they took this comment from a ‘members only’ fetish site, not Stormfront, but the journalist identified Mead as a ‘Secret Nazi’ not a ‘Secret fetishist’.

The damage was done. Lydia Stockdale, writing for Inside Housing details the sad aftermath for Gareth Mead. Within a week of the Mirror story, Gareth Mead had been sacked and was living on £257 a month in benefits.

By a curious coincidence, the pictures which led to Gareth Mead’s downfall had also been taken from a web site eight years old – they were taken long before he became boss of social housing, and at the time he believed they were private.

Others at the Nazi-themed gatherings – who were from ‘all walks of life’ – were older than him. They were ‘wise enough’ to make sure their faces were blanked out, he says, before they were posted on a secure ‘specialist website’ that had password protection, Mr Mead insists. They could have been downloaded by anyone with access to it over the past eight years. ‘Once they’re out there – you can’t get them back,’ he says.

If ever those photos were going to be brought to light, it was now, explains Mr Mead. ‘I was a very useful pawn in a bigger game of politics.’

Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s housing policies have been controversial and the London borough has been labelled a ‘test bed’ for right wing conservative policies.

Mr Mead says the Sunday Mirror coverage took his ‘sexual activity and bashing of the council for its policies, and tried to knit the two together’

Now let us look at some of the comments to my post that came in from people identifying themselves as journalists.

First up was ‘Mayweed’, who said:

“If we’re going to slam reporters for not getting their facts straight, it’s only fair to make sure we’re getting the facts straight”

She then went on to say:

“That’s a very serious accusation that, as someone on your site says, will be part of teh (sic) interweb for ever and I don’t think it’s fair.”

At least Mayweed has got the point – what is on the Internet is cached for ever.

That is why what was printed about Martin Cullip is so very unfair.

Had Ms Kennard pointed out that she had taken her material from a satirical page on a web site – and preferably added that she had done so without permission – then readers could have accurately judged whether to take it seriously or not. She didn’t, she gave the impression that this was the official information on the candidate.

That is cached on the Internet for ever. Anybody seeking information on Martin Cullip, either as parliamentary candidate, or as a transporter of their vulnerable child, will be able to learn from an apparently factual source, of his alleged habit of dressing up in women’s underwear. If I was the parent of a vulnerable child, I would be seriously concerned by that information.

Mayweed also went on to say:

“But do you know for sure that the email went directly to Julia Kennard or to her newsdesk, who might have failed to pass it on?”

I know that the e-mail reached a destination where someone was able to unhook the accompanying photograph and put it in the correct place on the page…

“Or perhaps the notoriously small mailboxes allowed to reporters quarrantined (sic)Martin’s large res picture for being too large (this does happen, stupid as it sounds)”

It managed to get through someone’s mailbox, it’s there large as life on the page…..

“We’ve no way of knowing whether Mr Hammond responded to her enquiry – maybe the profile she wrote on him was also garnered from the internet.”

Indeed, maybe it was. That was not the point. The point was that she needed more material on April 12^th – per her request to Mr Hammond – and yet declined to use the material ‘someone’ on her vast and busy newsdesk had detached the photograph from.

“Maybe she wrote a longer version of his profile that was cut back by subs who though (sic) stockings and motorways were the most interesting thing about him.”

Maybe she did. Now who’s suggesting an agenda? It doesn’t explain why she chose to first blame the candidate’s late submission for her omission –e-mail April 19^th.

“Please note this was the information I could source before deadline for the newspaper, however I shall endeavour to change what is on the website.”

And then chose to blame the ‘danger of trusting web content’. If it was subs to blame, then say so – and apologise. Don’t blame the victim.

Mayweed’s concern seems to be the damage to Ms Kennard’s reputation by this exchange remaining on the notoriously ‘unreliable’ web. She says that I am ‘making assumptions about a person you don’t know and have never met’.

I have made no assumptions; I have merely stated the facts.

Bob, another journalist, soon hopped along to say:

It seems that Anna has taken a (sic), albeit very unfortunate, subbing error and turned it into some kind of loony conspiracy, naming and shaming a journalist and trying to out her as some kind of monster.

He too, makes an assumption – that this was a subbing error, and that stating the facts means I am peddling a ‘loony conspiracy, naming and shaming a journalist’ – whereas naming and shaming a respectable business man as a ‘women’s underwear fetishist’ is merely a ‘subbing error’? He then suggests that detailing all the facts means I ‘have too much free time on my hands’…..

Believe me Bob, I manage to fit in the time to detail the misdemeanours of the main stream press round a full rich life.

Only one of the comments from professional journalists expressed any dismay at the effect this incident would have on Martin Cullip – and that was pretty lukewarm, from Mayweed.

“You could say her reputation is no less damaged than Martin’s and so it’s maybe tit-for-tat.”

Being proven to have lied, seeking to blame first the victim, then the web, and being exposed for having done so is no more and no less than ‘tit-for-tat’?

I have made no allegations regarding an agenda, I have posited no theories as to her motives, I have not turned this into a ‘loony conspiracy’. I have merely set out the facts as they occurred.

I have revealed all my sources, I have linked to the relevant sources, I cannot hide behind editors, sub-editors, news desks that fail to pass on information, ridiculously small inboxes, or any of the other excuses that the professional journalists have come up with.

I stand and fall by what I write every day, as does every other blogger – one apostrophe out of place and an army of grammar pedants will publicly ridicule me.

One lie in place of a provable fact and I could be taken to the cleaners by a firm of libel lawyers without the benefit of a union or a newspaper’s legal team.

One unpopular view that doesn’t accord with the majority of the Blogosphere and I will be abused, defamed, and ridiculed without the benefit of an expensive team of moderators to delete the offending comments, or paid leave whilst the dust settles.

I do it seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year, fitting it in round my ‘real life’ as does every other blogger.

How interesting that when the tables are turned on them, the professional journalists emerge from their cosy dens protected by an array of people – not to be shocked at the effects of their poor journalism, but to complain that I am ‘being unfair’.

Tell that to Gareth Mead. He is depressed and suffering months later. You can support him at #DefendGarethMead.

Tell that to Martin Cullip. We don’t yet know the long term effects on him. You can support him Here.

What really bothers journalists taken to task by a humble blogger is that their mistakes are out there for ever more. They liked the way the world was, when they were seen as reliable sources of information, and their mistakes were buried in the cutting’s library, hanging on the back of the alley toilet, or ‘corrected in the on-line version’.

It was safe, secure – the Internet isn’t. Welcome to the real world folks.

1
Sarbanes Oxley April 22, 2010 at 13:59

What is so pathetic is that Ms Kennard and her fellow members of the Journalism ‘ profession’ is that they would rather defend her, than offer a retraction and a fullsome apology after being caught out so completely.

Ms Kennard either had an agenda or she is in an incompetant journalist.

I understand that the Libertarian Party are considering their position with the American owners of the Guardian, and those journalists still peddling the ‘looney conspiracy’ theory are just digging a deeper hole for themselves.

2
JuliaM April 22, 2010 at 14:01

Wow, what a lot of ‘maybe this’ and ‘it could have been’ and ‘maybe she’ from these two.

Well, we now know one thing we didn’t know before – Kennard has at least two friends. Or relatives.

3
Saul April 22, 2010 at 14:14

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The thing that never ceases to amaze me, is the poor standard of grammar, punctuation and spelling. I can get away with it as I am just an ‘umble commenter. I would have thought they would be the basic requirements of a journalist.

4
miss mink April 22, 2010 at 15:08

Excellent Ana,
both these posts need to used as a kick up the arse for all lazy journalists.

5
SadButMadLad April 22, 2010 at 16:44

All I can say is what I said in the previous article.

In addition, she has the luxury of being able to close down her facebook page before too much damage occurs, whilst the damage has happened for Martin Cullip.

One other point, whenever you think conspiracy it is always more likely to be a cockup followed by cack-handed attempts at facesaving/coverups.

6
Brownian Motions April 22, 2010 at 17:14

‘I stand and fall by what I write every day’

And that is why I read it every day. Your words express many people’s thoughts most eloquently.

7
Joe Public April 22, 2010 at 17:23

Superb follow-up to an excellent original post.

Like Saul, I’m amazed at the poor standards of grammar from alleged ‘journalists’. There’s no excuse for them not using a spell-checker.

My excuse for any spelling & grammatical errors is that I’m simply a commenter.

8
T. P. Fuller April 22, 2010 at 17:33

Far more serious than any of this run-of-the-mill incompetence and spite is the failure of the mainstream media to hold the government to account. Journalists used to be respected — no longer, and with excellent cause. How much investigative work goes on these days, compared with the regurgitation of press releases?

Keep whipping them, Anna!

9
Alan April 22, 2010 at 18:19

T. P. Fuller,

I quite agree. There are too many news repeaters rather than news reporters. Copy and paste journalism has resulted in those with substantial pockets for PR being left well alone and the Government has the biggest.

There is a large and useless rump in the media of people who are broadcasting the word of the Government to the masses rather than actually sniffing out stories. Their eyes are on us to make sure we get the message rather than taking a close look at our Government.

10
Sabot April 22, 2010 at 18:27

Well done.

11
Châtelaine April 22, 2010 at 21:36

I second that

12
Pericles April 22, 2010 at 22:10

“… grammar, punctuation and spelling.  …  I would have thought they would be the basic requirements of a journalist.” — Saul

Saul, where have you been these last four or five decades ?  (Verily, you might not have been born for many of them.)  They don’t seem to be requirements of teachers or even academics any more. 

There was a time when a journalist was properly so called ;  Samuel Johnson, for example.  To-day anyone is considered capable of anything.  I was listening to the second debate earlier :  the fellow chairing it was so incompetent that Mr. Clegg effectively wound up as the chairman !

The permanence of material posted on the Internet is reason enough for the existence of a criminal offence of defamation.

Nice work, Anna ;  just as the old telegraphists could recognize one another from the keying, I could read the anger in your writing.

ΠΞ

13
Claire Heron April 22, 2010 at 23:45

Hi

A quick introduction. I am Martin Cullip’s partner. Firstly, I’d like to thank Anna Raccoon for shining a light on this story. It has not been very pleasant for us and without her help I’m sure there wouldn’t have been anything else in the paper about Martin except the appalling slur that first appeared.

Let me tell the journalists who are trying to find excuses for this behaviour exactly what has been going on in my household, shall I?

Martin told me once he had sent the original profile to Julia Kennard that he didn’t think it would get in as she was talking of a Friday 9th deadline. He was surprised at this as he has sent stuff to them himself in the past and was certain that Monday was their normal deadline day.

So when the paper arrived, I skimmed through it on the off chance that he might be in it. I got to page 24/25 and immediately saw the picture that he had sent. I screamed in excitement and shouted that he should come look. My daughter ran over with a big beam on her face too.

Then we read what was written.

Can you imagine how much of a kick in the guts that was?

Martin had texted me at 2:30pm on the same day to say that he was now confirmed to be in the election. I was brimming with pride and had told just about everyone I knew about it. We only receive the paper on a Friday, so looking back, some of those I spoke to must have already read this stuff and were probably laughing already.

I was holding back tears for the rest of the night when we were supposed to be excited about Martin being part of his first ever election. He works very hard and just wanted to have his say, and the result was him being ridiculed by a newspaper for having the guts to stand up for what he believed in.

On that Friday night, I just looked out of the window at the houses around us, all of whom have been friendly to us, and imagined them reading it and laughing at Martin and our family. You really don’t know what that feels like until you’ve experienced it. Believe me, it’s horrible.

Martin was very philospohical but I am a woman and not so able to just brush it off. I didn’t want to show my face at all that weekend but on Sunday Martin insisted on a barbecue for us. The moment we went outside, the young kid from next door poked his head over the fence and said to him that he had seen Martin in the paper. I cringed inside as I knew that his parents had read the **** which was published.

I had to bite the bullet and talk to them about it. They said to me that they found it strange that Martin would advertise himself that way so I explained everything. They were disgusted. Yes, they talked of suing for defamation and were very supportive, but I had to explain it to them, that is so humiliating.

I also got a few calls from family members who I had told that Martin was standing. Without exception, they thought that Martin had given that to the paper as a profile. My grandmother (who likes him a lot) said he was stupid and that she thought he was supposed to be a ’serious candidate’. Again, once explained, they were also appalled at the actions of the paper.

Martin is very well known in this area and has suffered nothing but jokes about wearing suspenders and stockings since. He has a great sense of humour and just shrugs it off, but when one of the kids is teased at school about his ‘gay dad’ it’s not funny anymore.

Explaining to neighbours and family members is one thing, but how do you get to talk to tens of thousands of readers to give them the real story when you’re never going to meet them?

I don’t care if Julia Kennard made a mistake, was spiteful, or any other reason for printing what she did. All I know is that our family has suffered, and will suffer for a long time, because of her article, yet the Guardian can’t bring themselves to apologise.

Martin stopped me from ringing Matthew Knowles, who left an irritated message on our home answerphone after Anna rang him (funny that the paper couldn’t find us before Anna rang him, isn’t it?) to give him a piece of my mind. I tell you now, it would have been vitriolic.

And now journalists are apparently defending them? You truly disgust me.

Where is the apology? Where is the admission of their ‘innocent mistake’ to those who read the crap they published last week? Where is the article which is going to put right the damage they have caused?

A correction isn’t good enough. Martin is happy with it, but I’m not.

Mayweed: I don’t care what happened, I want an apology. If it was a genuine mistake, are you telling me that they couldn’t have told us what was going to be published before the 19th? Or did they think that my family wasn’t worth it?

Or did that e-mail mysteriously shed its picture but the profile stay hidden for an entire week?

I teach my kids manners and decency. These reporters have none of those qualities.

I’ll be at the count and proud of Martin for standing up for his beliefs. If either of these are there that night, and come near me, the first word they better be saying is a huge sorry.

14
Pericles April 23, 2010 at 07:26

“…yet the [Sutton and Cheam] Guardian can’t bring themselves to apologise.”

The root of all to-day’s problems, in my not so respectful submission :  the post-war standard of manners.  Ever since the socialists won the disastrous 1945 election, the country has been going to hell. 

This absurd belief in universal equality was widespread in France long before the British latched on to it ;  yet in the boulangérie all greet one another, “Bonjour, Madame !”, “Bonjour, M’sieu’ !”  Even passing on the street — except in Paris, of course — they do that.  Why must only British behaviour be uncivilized ? One despairs.

ΠΞ

15
Pericles April 23, 2010 at 07:31

Sorry :  forgot the </em>.  HTML is so clunky ;  so much easier, when one just underlined things.

ΠΞ

16
Woman on a Raft April 23, 2010 at 08:03

There were two ways for Kennard to approach the page; as a journalist or as a PR. As a journalist she had an obligation to go and check what the candidates were saying about themselves. As it happens, I’ve met Cullip and it takes about three minutes to realize one is talking to an unusually decent and bright man. Kennard could, and should, have checked out the candidates. That’s why they write ‘journalist’ on her contract of employment.

Alternatively, she could have done what she appeared to do for the others, that is, run a straight copy of the profiles they each offered. That’s a standard PR exercise and it is perfectly respectable, albeit that it’s not investigative journalism. That meant that she should have phoned Cullip to make sure she had the same questionnaire for him as for the others. It’s not difficult. She can “take notes” as it used to be called.

Had a PR fouled up by substituting an old joke for the current information, they would not make that mistake twice because they’d be booted out.

So which ever job Kennard didn’t do, she’s still in the wrong. Knowles is still in the wrong for ignoring his own managment’s instructions to provide accurate, reliable information. See the Newsquest mission statement. Their whole product strategy relies on that and they’ve hired him to make sure it happens. That’s why they write ‘editor’ on his contract of employment.

Knowles can apologise in public for using an old joke to mislead the electorate of Sutton, who will otherwise be missing one of the best candidates they are ever likely to be offered.

17
North Northwester April 26, 2010 at 06:10

“one apostrophe out of place and an army of grammar pedants will publicly ridicule me.”

Actually, Anna , it’s ‘grammatical pedants.’

And vote UKIP.

Oh, and how many of these professional journalists insisted on the republication of the Mohammed cartoons to stand up for free speech and free journalism?
Lots? One? None?

18
Anna Raccoon April 26, 2010 at 07:04

Morning North Northwester,

The early pedant catches the worm?