After the Murdoch Times had been exposed as being seriously economical with the actualité over the so-called Muslim foster case, some might have thought that Rupe’s upmarket troops at the Baby Shard bunker would show a little contrition, perhaps admit their story was not quite as advertised. But that thought would have been misplaced: instead, they came out fighting, and made a seriously grave error in doing so.
The Saturday editorial was dripping with overbearing arrogance, and the arrogant man never learns. Under the title “Truth Hurts”, readers were informed “Not for the first time, The Times has been criticised for reporting the facts as it finds them. This is a kneejerk response that betrays a blind spot on the left”. Facts? They were the left’s fault.
Andrew Norfolk ... still in the mire
There was more: “In a series of reports this week The Times has questioned the appropriateness of a London borough’s decision to place a young Christian girl with conservative Muslim foster carers. Documents seen by this newspaper raised serious doubts as to whether Tower Hamlets officials were putting the child’s interests and happiness first. Social services staff recorded the girl’s distress when she was returned to her carers after supervised visits to her mother”.
"Truth Hurts", September 2017 ...
No mention that Tower Hamlets had to act with some speed, as the child had been taken into care following the exercise of emergency powers by Police. They had little choice where to place the child, and in any case this placement was merely temporary. No, the Times sneers on: “Given the religious and cultural sensitivity of the story there was always the likelihood that those less concerned with the child’s welfare than with superficial social harmony would cry foul. Sure enough, the Guardian newspaper …”
... the same arrogant, sneering assertion as in April 1989
It is almost as if the Times was defaulting to the same playbook as the Daily Mail, and its downmarket stablemate the Sun. And talking of the Super Soaraway Currant Bun, that editorial attitude rings a very loud bell. So Zelo Street has been looking at the Sun editorial for Thursday 20 April 1989 - the day after the infamous “THE TRUTH” front page.
“On Page One yesterday, we reported the unpalatable facts about the behaviour of SOME of the Liverpool fans at Hillsborough … Many of those who stormed into the ground had been drinking. Some urinated on rescue workers trying to save dying youngsters. Others looted the pockets of the injured … We did not invent that horrific report. The facts came from the Police, an MP, local publicans and taxi drivers” it sneered loftily.
There was more. “The people of Liverpool are angry that The Sun published the truth. Misguided local radio DJs urge listeners not to buy the paper … Will that bring back the dead? Of course not … But hopefully, telling the world exactly what went on at Hillsborough will mean that something is done to prevent such a disaster happening again … If the price to be paid is that some of you stop buying the Sun, then so be it … You have a choice … The 95 who died at Hillsborough had no such choice”.
We knew even then the Sun was lying. We also know that the Times has been selective and dishonest with the Muslim fostering case, and that blaming “the left” for facts that expose their shoddy journalism is the lowest form of cheap smear. And what was the title of that Sun editorial? “The Truth Hurts”. That’s the same title used by the Times. In 28 years, little else has changed in the mindset of the Murdoch press.