The MailOnline has generally set a fairly low benchmark for its accuracy and standards of reporting. But it plumbed new depths on Sunday 26 April. Because it quite literally photoshopped a picture of an Olympian to make it look like he had broken coronavirus (Covid-19) social distancing rules.
Feel free not to click any of the MailOnline links. Unless you enjoy funding the right-wing corporate press.
Did James Cracknell break lockdown rules? Olympian posts then swiftly deletes picture visiting his parents
You can say the headline out loud in a shouty, gammon-ish voice if you wish. The MailOnline metaphorically screamed:
James Cracknell appears to have potentially broken lockdown rules after posting and then deleting a picture of him visiting his parents.
In the now deleted Instagram picture, which the double Olympic gold medal winner uploaded on Sunday morning, Cracknell is seen sitting in a garden next to his father.
Read on...Support us and go ad-free
The 47-year-old posted the picture for his 37,000 followers alongside the caption: ‘Been too long since I caught up with my folks, loved it.’
The problem is, the rag photoshopped the image that it displays on social media shares of the article.
Photoshopping for clicks
The original looked like this:
Social distancing rules applied? Check. But the image that people see on social media looks like this:
No, really. The MailOnline did just do that. Cracknell wasn’t best impressed. As he tweeted:
Here’s a game of spot the difference. 1) @dailymail ‘s pic of me & my dad 2) the actual picture. Socially distant, no physical contact & was bringing them food. Been a long month of no contact, my mum worked for the NHS her whole career so she was ruthless about distance. Thanks pic.twitter.com/4cWifBGzMa
— James Cracknell (@jamescracknell) April 26, 2020
People leaped to his defence:
This is disgraceful! And just shows how far the Mail will go to lie so something fits their hate-filled conceited narrative.
— Nick Of The North (@PeripateNic) April 26, 2020
Others were somewhat sarcastic in their reactions:
Britain's newspapers are struggling to continue in circulation. It costs less than a cup of coffee, so could I please ask everybody to do their bit to help journalism in the UK.
And buy that coffee.#ragjournalism
— Ian Moore (@Ian_DMoore) April 26, 2020
And Ruth Mutton made a fair and balanced point:
Unbelievable! Whatever your opinion on whether he should be there or not, doing this with a photo is unacceptable.
— Ruth Mutton (@RuthMutton1) April 26, 2020
But aside from the obvious false inference (or lie, if you like) from the MailOnline that Cracknell broke social distancing rules, did he break the other government coronavirus guidelines?
The government says…
The official advice says that, among other things, you should only leave your house for:
one form of exercise a day, for example a run, walk, or cycle – alone or with members of your household.
That is, we shouldn’t be visiting family or friends who don’t live with us. But Cracknell was clearly in a quandary. As he said on Twitter, he was “bringing them food”. Not good enough for the MailOnline, though. It squealed that:
Where relatives are elderly or vulnerable, it is permitted to leave your house to help them, for example by dropping shopping or medication at their door. You can also help them to order online.
But Cracknell could well argue that him sitting several metres apart in his parent’s garden with them is no different, say, to seeing them in a park and standing several metres apart to talk to them. Which is not against the rules. Moreover, government schemes to protect people over the age of 70, for example access to food deliveries, are still not working properly.
My mother, 80, who lives with moderate dementia and only one functioning kidney, has had no communication from the government about being at increased risk. Her friends, all over the age of 70 themselves, have to get shopping from the supermarket for her. This is despite government guidance clearly stating over-70s have to follow strict social distancing, because they are at “moderate risk“.
Whether you agree with what Cracknell did or not, it doesn’t warrant the Mail on Sunday doctoring a photo of him just to drive traffic to what otherwise was an article in the realms of the ‘gossip columns’. Which was actually the thrust of the piece: detailing tittle-tattle about his ex-wife. But that’s the MailOnline all over.
We need your help to keep speaking the truth
Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.
Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.
We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.
In return, you get:
* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop
Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.
With your help we can continue:
* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do
We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?