Simply a brilliant journalist doing the job properly. We really depend upon 'canaries in the coal mine' like Carol. I simply don't understand how some once respectable right of centre lost their morality. But appreciate it being called out. Thank you.
Thank you for speaking out on this I was cyber bullied before and it was atrocious people went after my family my parents ect. It was everyday harassment for years they tried to write me off, I moved many times and focused on my children. I couldn't control that beast at the time. Words do matter and words 🤕 hurt, they can build edify or destroy.. these journalist who contributed to this should be charged with murder .. 🫸 pushing people to suicide especially knowing he was autistic (a vunerable adult) is damning and concerning. A wrongful death lawsuit needs to be filed. Point me to advocacy
Why do you think Arday shouldn’t have been covered? Solely because he was black? We know why Cofnas had the opening to take his revenge - as he put it - on Cambridge because Arday used Carter Ruck to shut down one with a SLAPP letter and told the police to open a criminal complaint against that journalist. He reported another academic with legitimate questions as a racist to his institution. So let’s get into his life story if I had lied to that extent I would never have a job again. But then I’m a black woman and we know that Arday beat out two qualified senior scholars women of color. at his hiring panel. 1. What makes this story not newsworthy 2. Do you agree with the SLAPP letter that Arday had sent out to shut down the earlier investigation and why? Do you agree with reporting the other academic as a racist? Again if so why?
Those questions you ask Bronwyn may be valid in some contexts but not now. Did you read the full text of Carole's piece? It's about how someone can be bullied to death while the media ecosystem benefits from the 'journalism'. It's a tricky subject I'll give you that but Carole has a valuable insider's view on the landscape, don't you think?
Those questions are valid right now. He was not bullied into killing himself by the media no more than he used the media and the police to bully others himself. He was a fabulist and con artist who couldn’t take being exposed for what he was. Full stop. And I’ll save my pity for the people of colour who won’t get the opportunities he did because of lies and fraud.
Sorry if this is repeated, I thought I’d replied earlier. So, you have no pity for a damaged individual who has taken their own life? That’s cold Bronwyn whatever your agenda.
I don’t have any agenda. Maybe you do. No I have no pity for a con artist who took jobs away from qualified people of colour and made our lives harder.
It is going to affect academic opportunity for those with legitimate past obstacles that they've overcome, because hiring committees don't like risk. They were just starting to broaden their approach but they really don't have to in most fields because there are many applicants who've performed consistently well and faced no big problems. They mostly do not care about race, gender whatever, they just care about future results, which past results tend to predict.
I don't really think so no, I also have an insider perspective but inside academia. I've read Arday's work, I've read many perspectives from within Cambridge and I do think I have a fair grasp of the scandal. I think Carole is over interpreting this as relating to her own experiences. To a degree it does, but I think it's a superficial similarity and I think Bronwyn is hitting more of the right notes here. Sorry about that.
I was referring to the basic premise of Carole’s piece - demonstrating the institutional racism of the media and I felt that Bronwyn’s stance was muddying the waters. I wasn’t intentionally being contrarian.
I know you weren't. It's worse than that. You are adopting the morally grotesque stance of denying that there was a legitimate story in Arday’s rise and fall *on the basis of his skin colour and/or familial ethnic origins*. We will never see what constitutes racism in the same way, so let us not waste each other's time here.
You can hmmm all you want but I’m betting you’re just another nice white male liberal who is hear to tell me how “you just don’t understand how I can be so cold to one of my own? And everyone I know agrees with me even my black best friend”. I got news for you 1. We’re not a monolith 2. You need to examine your own condescending attitude and how that may spring out of your own latent racism.
After reading Sarah Ditum's article, I can see your point. As a feminist, I can also see why his platform would be extremely disappointing (as one is, often with the state of things). Overlooking qualified women to hold up a man that is less qualified with some credibility issues is so common and is an example of our invisibility. I find his story to be an instrument that swept over something very important, and his death made him more of a martyr than man struggling to keep up with his performance. I do have sympathy for Arday and his family, and I do not believe digital harassment by journalists is acceptable either. . . Interesting thought though, if a qualified woman had been hired, maybe he'd still be alive.
Also I can’t recommend more the Sarah Ditum article on Substack and Afua Hirsch’s article in the Guardian. Hirsch made clear that black & brown scholars knew he wasn’t up to the position but didn’t want to point it out for obvious reasons including, remember, he had the highest position in the English speaking world in Sociology.
Don’t forget autistic and neurodivergent kids. I see a group of mothers on twitter trying to convince themselves that maybe Arday wasn’t lying about that as well when it is very likely he was.
So Baz, I'm thinking you've missed the complexity of this conversation. A black woman is saying that a black man, who was less qualified, was hired and he perpetuated a power dynamic that has ill effects on his own race. . . .where did we confuse this as purely a racism concern? I acknowledge her plight as a woman. I also agreed that journalism should not be used as a weapon. As I see it, it's both systemic racism and sexism here. This is why black women get the brunt of these prejudices. I don't follow your logic. . . .
Whether there is an issue of sexism in Cambridge hiring in different fields is more up for grabs. I don't in general feel that way. Note that both Oxford and Cambridge are led by women, and much of the senior leadership is female. If current trends continue, in 20 or 30 years there's a good chance men will be a minority in most fields, and a small minority in many. It's still true more senior positions are held by men, but there aren't men in the pipeline to replace them as they retire.
I don't see that sexism is a very prominent message in this scandal. It could have been a woman, if she'd been an expansive and highly outgoing fabulist in this way. My experience of female narcissism and what have you, which has been within my family rather than at work, is that it's a bit more slow burn than the male version can be.
I think that the issue here is an institution that wanted to choose the best story and oh they got it. But 1. Why did they not look at his research and writing? I’ve read some of it and seen him speak it’s embarrassingly bad. So it was great scholarship that got him in. Yes you had two other senior women of color scholars who apparently were qualified. So why did the women (head of the college) choose him over at least two other women who were qualified? I think it is bigotry of low expectations and let’s choose a candidate we can get a story out of and show off. And so they chose a mascot over a qualified scholar.
Hang on Ashley, it’s not that complex - because of the institutional racism/classism in the British media, Jason was hounded over and above the normal level you’d see if there’d not been a race element. Plus the number of articles it generated far outstripped what a similar story could expect if the alleged wrongdoer had been white. Which is essentially what Carole has demonstrated in her piece.
In the comments here people are bringing their own opinions to the conversation, which is only to be expected on such an emotive topic.
No that’s not true. The Salt Path story is still being covered (promoted by the Times this week) and it had a podcast about it. James Frey had a huge amount of coverage and was castigated on TV by Oprah no less. The Jayson Blair scandal took months and brought down the senior editorial leadership at the NYT. Stephen Glass even had a movie made about him. Janet Cooke’s story is still taught in journalism and media classes. Also had Arday not threatened Jack Grove the THE reporter he might have gotten away with being quietly shunted aside or allowed to resign quietly. It was - as Nixon used to say- the fucking cover up that did him in.
You are judging much from a couple of comments Bronwyn, all I can say is your analysis is inaccurate. In my humble opinion humanity trumps all other considerations - but as you don’t know me, I hope you can take my word for it.
I don't think Bronwyn's analysis is inaccurate at all. The guy was a fraud and if his lips were moving he was lying. Tragic that he killed himself but tragedy doesn't make him any less of a liar. The people who hired him bear the greatest responsibility after he himself. What was the phrase? Bigotry of lowered expectations? Good lord. I mean the guy said he ran 600 miles in six days. Sorry, but physically just not possible. Ask any ultra runner. Autistic? Says who? Him? And you believe him? Journalists are pretty much the bottom of the barrel these days in my book, reporting narratives rather than facts, but you can hardly blame them for commenting on this. It certainly qualified as a story.
So, armed with all the relevant details of the situation your mind is made up. Signed sealed and delivered. I just hope you don’t have a day job judiciary.
That is an illogical, complex question that implicates the author while clearly ignoring her statement that "of course, accusations of plagiarism must be investigated." PERIOD.
(pull up your pants. your white male fear is showing) And yes, I enjoyed that lil ad hominem. Women deserve a few...
even before I read down the comments to your responses. lay off the tate, bro.
I cannot fully express how much I enjoy your writing, even though, from ‘across the pond, I don’t recognize all the players. I do however recognize ‘the play’.
Carole, thank you for this, both the practical guide and the personal honesty of it. I am writing to you partly as a reader and partly as someone who has just completed a book, A Framework of Hope: The Erosion of Democracy and the Case for Its Renewal, which is to be published shortly and has been arriving at the same conclusions from a different direction.
You write that this is a business model, not an aberration. That is the most precise thing that can be said about it. The Times paying to algorithmically amplify an anonymous complaint that a student felt she deserved 75% rather than 70% is not journalism that went wrong. It is the business model working exactly as designed: identifying a target, generating profitable outrage, amplifying it across platforms, collecting fees at every stage while the cost is borne entirely by the person in the blast zone.
The book argues that this mechanism, the cultivation of targets for profitable attack, is the same business model Anne Applebaum documents in Autocracy Inc in the European authoritarian context. The press version and the oligarch version are working on different terrain through the same underlying logic: benefit from the weakening of accountability structures, profit from the confusion the weakening produces, and make accountability for your own conduct as difficult as possible.
This is why the Arday case, handled with the epistemic care the coroner's process requires, makes the case for Leveson Part 2 more urgent than at any point since it was cancelled in 2018. Part 1 recommendations address identifiable individual breaches. Part 2 was specifically designed to examine systemic behaviour, corporate governance, editorial culture, the decisions made at editor and proprietor level about what campaigns to run and why. The questions it would have asked about the Arday coverage are exactly the questions you are asking. They remain unanswered because the inquiry that would have asked them was cancelled.
I would very much like to send you a copy when we publish.
"The book argues that this mechanism, the cultivation of targets for profitable attack, is the same business model Anne Applebaum documents in Autocracy Inc in the European authoritarian context."
Now she discusses them in the US context, here in Substack, in the Atlantic, etc.
The big difference here is that Carole Cadwalladr was attacked for telling the truth. Jason Aday was attacked because not only he fail to tell the truth but he also sought to use lawyers' letters to block questions from a bona fide journalist from the THES who was investigating the story. I understand Carole's feelings of solidarity and empathy for a victim but do not agree with this post.
He was attacked for both, but if he had told the truth he wouldn't have been in a such a vulnerable position. There is a lot more to read and understand about this matter than it would seem Cadwalladr's full substack includes.
thank you Carol for speaking out with a different view than that from the Times etc. Perhaps someone needs to do a similar investigation and expose into the background of the white supremacist who kicked this off. let him defend himself in the court of public opinion for a change.
Great article thank you Carol. The author Jon Ronson wrote about the cruelty of social media in his book - So, You've Been Publicly Shamed - it's now 10 years old. Sadly, nothing has changed.
A bizarre reading of Ronson. Cancellations for irrational, unjust reasons have nothing to do with exposing a serial fabulist who has climbed to great heights through deceit.
Disagreement, criticism and investigation of the claims of someone in a prominent very public position does not equal a mob pile on. What do you want, Carole, a media landscape where everyone is at pains to be super polite and restrained all the time so as not to risk upsetting the sensitive? Even when they hold very prominent jobs?
Clearly Arday was not equipped for his. That’s the tragedy; he should never have been put in that position. Not that he got exposed.
Yeah, c'mon- we love bullying people! Anyone who can't take the heat should just not exist, if they make their presence known, we will bully them to death anyway, so tell them all to sit down and shut up! We're mean and we like it, if you can't handle constant abuse you should just hide in a hole! Jeeze I can't wait for all these empathetic people to just die off so we can beat the crap out of each other for all eternity in peace without their incessant whinging... 🙏🫠
Oh f*ck off. Who said anything about bullying. What happened to Arday was not that. Virtually all the commentary from all sides put the blame on his enablers, who built him up as a star then dropped him. But it’d be extra patronising to pretend he didn’t gamely play along. I suspect he always knew it was a dangerous grift he was onto. He’d probably still say it was worth it.
And btw assessing people solely or primarily in terms of their skin colour is what got Arday into a dangerous place in the first place. ‘If anything Bad happens to a black person, it’s because Racism’. No. That’s racist itself.
Let's just make up things like this little gem that lil nazis love to bring up; "If anything Bad happens to a black person, it’s because Racism’. No. That’s racist itself."
Thank you Carol. Beyond the issue of piling on Arday because he was black is the issue of his disability. Would the media have piled on him to such an extent if he had a visible disability, such as visual impairment, or if he was a wheelchair user?
News Corp (owner of The Times) has been at the forefront of monetising relentless harassment passed off as "robust journalism" for decades. The phone hacking disgrace proved it could get away with anything and suffer zero consequences, after which it became only further emboldened.
Every word of this advice is spot on Carole. Having also been through my own small online monstering (resulting in the Spectator and Spiked treatment) you are so right in saying that it was the private, and public messages of support - especially from industry peers - that helped me the most. And I remember every single one of them.
Simply a brilliant journalist doing the job properly. We really depend upon 'canaries in the coal mine' like Carol. I simply don't understand how some once respectable right of centre lost their morality. But appreciate it being called out. Thank you.
Thank you for speaking out on this I was cyber bullied before and it was atrocious people went after my family my parents ect. It was everyday harassment for years they tried to write me off, I moved many times and focused on my children. I couldn't control that beast at the time. Words do matter and words 🤕 hurt, they can build edify or destroy.. these journalist who contributed to this should be charged with murder .. 🫸 pushing people to suicide especially knowing he was autistic (a vunerable adult) is damning and concerning. A wrongful death lawsuit needs to be filed. Point me to advocacy
Thank you Carole, for your courage and commitment to humanity decency.
Thank you for writing this Carole. It’s such a helpful guide on how employers & institutions should handle these crises.
May Jason Arday rest in peace.
And may we learn how better to support people facing these aggressive pile-ons in future. I will take your advice to heart.
Why do you think Arday shouldn’t have been covered? Solely because he was black? We know why Cofnas had the opening to take his revenge - as he put it - on Cambridge because Arday used Carter Ruck to shut down one with a SLAPP letter and told the police to open a criminal complaint against that journalist. He reported another academic with legitimate questions as a racist to his institution. So let’s get into his life story if I had lied to that extent I would never have a job again. But then I’m a black woman and we know that Arday beat out two qualified senior scholars women of color. at his hiring panel. 1. What makes this story not newsworthy 2. Do you agree with the SLAPP letter that Arday had sent out to shut down the earlier investigation and why? Do you agree with reporting the other academic as a racist? Again if so why?
Those questions you ask Bronwyn may be valid in some contexts but not now. Did you read the full text of Carole's piece? It's about how someone can be bullied to death while the media ecosystem benefits from the 'journalism'. It's a tricky subject I'll give you that but Carole has a valuable insider's view on the landscape, don't you think?
Those questions are valid right now. He was not bullied into killing himself by the media no more than he used the media and the police to bully others himself. He was a fabulist and con artist who couldn’t take being exposed for what he was. Full stop. And I’ll save my pity for the people of colour who won’t get the opportunities he did because of lies and fraud.
Sorry if this is repeated, I thought I’d replied earlier. So, you have no pity for a damaged individual who has taken their own life? That’s cold Bronwyn whatever your agenda.
I don’t have any agenda. Maybe you do. No I have no pity for a con artist who took jobs away from qualified people of colour and made our lives harder.
Hmm….
Jesus. I’m flagging you.
It is going to affect academic opportunity for those with legitimate past obstacles that they've overcome, because hiring committees don't like risk. They were just starting to broaden their approach but they really don't have to in most fields because there are many applicants who've performed consistently well and faced no big problems. They mostly do not care about race, gender whatever, they just care about future results, which past results tend to predict.
The race issue it would seem does exist, hence the open wound this sad episode has revealed.
The race issue is very subtle and complex here. Much has been written about this scandal. Sarah Ditum did a good job on her substack I thought.
I don't really think so no, I also have an insider perspective but inside academia. I've read Arday's work, I've read many perspectives from within Cambridge and I do think I have a fair grasp of the scandal. I think Carole is over interpreting this as relating to her own experiences. To a degree it does, but I think it's a superficial similarity and I think Bronwyn is hitting more of the right notes here. Sorry about that.
Valid in some contexts? Which contexts? And why not valid in the context of blaming journalists for reporting on a story?
I was referring to the basic premise of Carole’s piece - demonstrating the institutional racism of the media and I felt that Bronwyn’s stance was muddying the waters. I wasn’t intentionally being contrarian.
I know you weren't. It's worse than that. You are adopting the morally grotesque stance of denying that there was a legitimate story in Arday’s rise and fall *on the basis of his skin colour and/or familial ethnic origins*. We will never see what constitutes racism in the same way, so let us not waste each other's time here.
You come across as a bit of a know it all, must be great having everything worked out.
You can hmmm all you want but I’m betting you’re just another nice white male liberal who is hear to tell me how “you just don’t understand how I can be so cold to one of my own? And everyone I know agrees with me even my black best friend”. I got news for you 1. We’re not a monolith 2. You need to examine your own condescending attitude and how that may spring out of your own latent racism.
After reading Sarah Ditum's article, I can see your point. As a feminist, I can also see why his platform would be extremely disappointing (as one is, often with the state of things). Overlooking qualified women to hold up a man that is less qualified with some credibility issues is so common and is an example of our invisibility. I find his story to be an instrument that swept over something very important, and his death made him more of a martyr than man struggling to keep up with his performance. I do have sympathy for Arday and his family, and I do not believe digital harassment by journalists is acceptable either. . . Interesting thought though, if a qualified woman had been hired, maybe he'd still be alive.
Also I can’t recommend more the Sarah Ditum article on Substack and Afua Hirsch’s article in the Guardian. Hirsch made clear that black & brown scholars knew he wasn’t up to the position but didn’t want to point it out for obvious reasons including, remember, he had the highest position in the English speaking world in Sociology.
Don’t forget autistic and neurodivergent kids. I see a group of mothers on twitter trying to convince themselves that maybe Arday wasn’t lying about that as well when it is very likely he was.
Link?
Go follow the journalist Nicky Clark who has an autistic child and apparently still thinks Arday was autistic too.
The issue here Ashley is institutionalised racism, in your example maybe the ‘more qualified woman’ would be dead now instead.
So Baz, I'm thinking you've missed the complexity of this conversation. A black woman is saying that a black man, who was less qualified, was hired and he perpetuated a power dynamic that has ill effects on his own race. . . .where did we confuse this as purely a racism concern? I acknowledge her plight as a woman. I also agreed that journalism should not be used as a weapon. As I see it, it's both systemic racism and sexism here. This is why black women get the brunt of these prejudices. I don't follow your logic. . . .
I don't know that there is a sexism issue at the Cambridge faculty of eduction, if by that we mean discrimination against women.
https://faculty.educ.cam.ac.uk/
Whether there is an issue of sexism in Cambridge hiring in different fields is more up for grabs. I don't in general feel that way. Note that both Oxford and Cambridge are led by women, and much of the senior leadership is female. If current trends continue, in 20 or 30 years there's a good chance men will be a minority in most fields, and a small minority in many. It's still true more senior positions are held by men, but there aren't men in the pipeline to replace them as they retire.
I don't see that sexism is a very prominent message in this scandal. It could have been a woman, if she'd been an expansive and highly outgoing fabulist in this way. My experience of female narcissism and what have you, which has been within my family rather than at work, is that it's a bit more slow burn than the male version can be.
I think that the issue here is an institution that wanted to choose the best story and oh they got it. But 1. Why did they not look at his research and writing? I’ve read some of it and seen him speak it’s embarrassingly bad. So it was great scholarship that got him in. Yes you had two other senior women of color scholars who apparently were qualified. So why did the women (head of the college) choose him over at least two other women who were qualified? I think it is bigotry of low expectations and let’s choose a candidate we can get a story out of and show off. And so they chose a mascot over a qualified scholar.
https://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/26061
RMC- not much of a presence on substack 🤔 anyway, I'll just leave this article here by Cambridge
https://www.varsity.co.uk/comment/26061
Hang on Ashley, it’s not that complex - because of the institutional racism/classism in the British media, Jason was hounded over and above the normal level you’d see if there’d not been a race element. Plus the number of articles it generated far outstripped what a similar story could expect if the alleged wrongdoer had been white. Which is essentially what Carole has demonstrated in her piece.
In the comments here people are bringing their own opinions to the conversation, which is only to be expected on such an emotive topic.
We can all learn from each other.
No that’s not true. The Salt Path story is still being covered (promoted by the Times this week) and it had a podcast about it. James Frey had a huge amount of coverage and was castigated on TV by Oprah no less. The Jayson Blair scandal took months and brought down the senior editorial leadership at the NYT. Stephen Glass even had a movie made about him. Janet Cooke’s story is still taught in journalism and media classes. Also had Arday not threatened Jack Grove the THE reporter he might have gotten away with being quietly shunted aside or allowed to resign quietly. It was - as Nixon used to say- the fucking cover up that did him in.
You are judging much from a couple of comments Bronwyn, all I can say is your analysis is inaccurate. In my humble opinion humanity trumps all other considerations - but as you don’t know me, I hope you can take my word for it.
I don't think Bronwyn's analysis is inaccurate at all. The guy was a fraud and if his lips were moving he was lying. Tragic that he killed himself but tragedy doesn't make him any less of a liar. The people who hired him bear the greatest responsibility after he himself. What was the phrase? Bigotry of lowered expectations? Good lord. I mean the guy said he ran 600 miles in six days. Sorry, but physically just not possible. Ask any ultra runner. Autistic? Says who? Him? And you believe him? Journalists are pretty much the bottom of the barrel these days in my book, reporting narratives rather than facts, but you can hardly blame them for commenting on this. It certainly qualified as a story.
So, armed with all the relevant details of the situation your mind is made up. Signed sealed and delivered. I just hope you don’t have a day job judiciary.
That is an illogical, complex question that implicates the author while clearly ignoring her statement that "of course, accusations of plagiarism must be investigated." PERIOD.
(pull up your pants. your white male fear is showing) And yes, I enjoyed that lil ad hominem. Women deserve a few...
even before I read down the comments to your responses. lay off the tate, bro.
This has turned into a mini pile-on so I’m out, 👋🏼
I cannot fully express how much I enjoy your writing, even though, from ‘across the pond, I don’t recognize all the players. I do however recognize ‘the play’.
Carry on Carol!!!
WTF with our sensationalist and amoral legacy media.
Carole, thank you for this, both the practical guide and the personal honesty of it. I am writing to you partly as a reader and partly as someone who has just completed a book, A Framework of Hope: The Erosion of Democracy and the Case for Its Renewal, which is to be published shortly and has been arriving at the same conclusions from a different direction.
You write that this is a business model, not an aberration. That is the most precise thing that can be said about it. The Times paying to algorithmically amplify an anonymous complaint that a student felt she deserved 75% rather than 70% is not journalism that went wrong. It is the business model working exactly as designed: identifying a target, generating profitable outrage, amplifying it across platforms, collecting fees at every stage while the cost is borne entirely by the person in the blast zone.
The book argues that this mechanism, the cultivation of targets for profitable attack, is the same business model Anne Applebaum documents in Autocracy Inc in the European authoritarian context. The press version and the oligarch version are working on different terrain through the same underlying logic: benefit from the weakening of accountability structures, profit from the confusion the weakening produces, and make accountability for your own conduct as difficult as possible.
This is why the Arday case, handled with the epistemic care the coroner's process requires, makes the case for Leveson Part 2 more urgent than at any point since it was cancelled in 2018. Part 1 recommendations address identifiable individual breaches. Part 2 was specifically designed to examine systemic behaviour, corporate governance, editorial culture, the decisions made at editor and proprietor level about what campaigns to run and why. The questions it would have asked about the Arday coverage are exactly the questions you are asking. They remain unanswered because the inquiry that would have asked them was cancelled.
I would very much like to send you a copy when we publish.
Geoffrey Hansford
"The book argues that this mechanism, the cultivation of targets for profitable attack, is the same business model Anne Applebaum documents in Autocracy Inc in the European authoritarian context."
Now she discusses them in the US context, here in Substack, in the Atlantic, etc.
The big difference here is that Carole Cadwalladr was attacked for telling the truth. Jason Aday was attacked because not only he fail to tell the truth but he also sought to use lawyers' letters to block questions from a bona fide journalist from the THES who was investigating the story. I understand Carole's feelings of solidarity and empathy for a victim but do not agree with this post.
"Jason Aday was attacked because not only he fail to tell the truth"
Incorrect. He was attacked if you had read Cadwalladr's full substack here because he's black.
He was attacked for both, but if he had told the truth he wouldn't have been in a such a vulnerable position. There is a lot more to read and understand about this matter than it would seem Cadwalladr's full substack includes.
thank you Carol for speaking out with a different view than that from the Times etc. Perhaps someone needs to do a similar investigation and expose into the background of the white supremacist who kicked this off. let him defend himself in the court of public opinion for a change.
I'd love that!
Great article thank you Carol. The author Jon Ronson wrote about the cruelty of social media in his book - So, You've Been Publicly Shamed - it's now 10 years old. Sadly, nothing has changed.
A bizarre reading of Ronson. Cancellations for irrational, unjust reasons have nothing to do with exposing a serial fabulist who has climbed to great heights through deceit.
Disagreement, criticism and investigation of the claims of someone in a prominent very public position does not equal a mob pile on. What do you want, Carole, a media landscape where everyone is at pains to be super polite and restrained all the time so as not to risk upsetting the sensitive? Even when they hold very prominent jobs?
Clearly Arday was not equipped for his. That’s the tragedy; he should never have been put in that position. Not that he got exposed.
Yeah, c'mon- we love bullying people! Anyone who can't take the heat should just not exist, if they make their presence known, we will bully them to death anyway, so tell them all to sit down and shut up! We're mean and we like it, if you can't handle constant abuse you should just hide in a hole! Jeeze I can't wait for all these empathetic people to just die off so we can beat the crap out of each other for all eternity in peace without their incessant whinging... 🙏🫠
Oh f*ck off. Who said anything about bullying. What happened to Arday was not that. Virtually all the commentary from all sides put the blame on his enablers, who built him up as a star then dropped him. But it’d be extra patronising to pretend he didn’t gamely play along. I suspect he always knew it was a dangerous grift he was onto. He’d probably still say it was worth it.
Keep pretending he deserved it, it's good for morale; empathy and understanding are for the weak! 👍
Wow.
You've gone full racist to get a dopamine bump.
Nope.
And btw assessing people solely or primarily in terms of their skin colour is what got Arday into a dangerous place in the first place. ‘If anything Bad happens to a black person, it’s because Racism’. No. That’s racist itself.
Let's just make up things like this little gem that lil nazis love to bring up; "If anything Bad happens to a black person, it’s because Racism’. No. That’s racist itself."
Call her names all you want, but it IS racist to say that.
What the fuck is wrong with you
People are appointed to positions of importance, accountability should be on those who appointed them.
Thank you Carol. Beyond the issue of piling on Arday because he was black is the issue of his disability. Would the media have piled on him to such an extent if he had a visible disability, such as visual impairment, or if he was a wheelchair user?
News Corp (owner of The Times) has been at the forefront of monetising relentless harassment passed off as "robust journalism" for decades. The phone hacking disgrace proved it could get away with anything and suffer zero consequences, after which it became only further emboldened.
Every word of this advice is spot on Carole. Having also been through my own small online monstering (resulting in the Spectator and Spiked treatment) you are so right in saying that it was the private, and public messages of support - especially from industry peers - that helped me the most. And I remember every single one of them.