Post

Statement from the Guardian NUJ chapel on the death of professor Jason Arday

38 reposts98 likes

The hypocrisy of your paper is staggering! The irony of you, being the top ring leader in the pile up & hounding of Dr Jason Arday; telling people that "attack against INDIVIDUALS...put those who have been SINGLED OUT at risk" Really? You don't say!! I'm so glad I ended my Guardian subscription

You think this was 'considered, proportionate, and in the public interest'. You've come a long way from the days when the NUJ stood up against the establishment (eg miners strike)

condemning attacks, fuelling division, putting those singled out at risk, no worker should be subject to abuse, considered, proportionate etc But you knew that, right?

The Media Show R4 currently has his friend, featured in one of the articles, currently explaining where the inaccurracies & misleading points are. These include saying that he was unwilling to speak to them, they diminished his relationship from childhood & his mum who was Jason's SEND TA. 4 Clicks

Calling out harassment of your journalists is valid, but this was the wrong place and wrong tone. You should be able to give Jason Arday's foreseeable and unnecessary death the space and reflection it deserves without hastening to add that you are the real victims.

Yes, journalists must 'report what they find, in a way that is considered [&] proportionate'. The Guardian coverage was neither. Its defensive lines - this statement, Hugh Muir calling Jason Arday a "prominent public figure" & promising to focus on the 'institutions involved' - don't erase that.

That's my point. I think you could count on one hand the "TV dons" who count as public figures - Mary Beard, Brian Cox, perhaps, although even then, 'promiment' is a bit much – but Jason Arday was obscure.