[derek500]

Interestingly he’s got a section discussing Carol Voderman coming up, I believe Voderman made some comment about him trending on Twitter last week.

She was one of Twitter goons who thought Wootton had been taken off air, when he was actually on a planned holiday.

[bilky asko]

She was one of Twitter goons who thought Wootton had been taken off air, when he was actually on a planned holiday.

It was an obvious pastiche of the (many) similar tweets about Huw Edwards that were getting the name to trend.

[TheJarv]

www.theguardian.com 

Tory MP in charge of scrutinising British media hosted drinks event for GB News …
Caroline Dinenage, who is scrutinising proposed changes to media legislation, sp…
  Source: www.theguardian.com

[Adsales]

Always a sure sign that excrement is about to hit the fan when your biggest cheerleaders/BFFs delete their supportive tweets 👀

[all new phil]

Interesting how discussion about Edwards and Schofield was initially shut down, yet similar talk about Wootton is allowed to continue.

[bilky asko]

Interesting how discussion about Edwards and Schofield was initially shut down, yet similar talk about Wootton is allowed to continue.

Huw Edwards and Phillip Schofield are big household names and there was incredible amounts of news coverage over both of them, across newspapers, television, and online, over a long period of time.

Dan Wootton is an gossip columnist whose career peak was 5 years ago, and the only real coverage has been in Private Eye. Coverage outside that only started last night in the relatively unknown, and not exactly the most trustworthy in moments past, Byline Times, timed to coincide with the start of his show on GB News. There was little prior period of gossip to pre-warn of an issue.

At the very least, the timing is hardly ideal for the moderation team to react.

[Brekkie]

Interesting how discussion about Edwards and Schofield was initially shut down, yet similar talk about Wootton is allowed to continue.

The discussion here has been about him being on air and the media reporting - or not - on it.   Other than a link to the article putting such discussion in context I've seen no speculation or discussion here on the allegations themselves.


As for GB News - part of me thinks they'd be quite happy to have a comparable scandal of their own.  As much as they go on about how awful the "mainstream media" is they desperately want to be a part of it.

[Adsales]

Interesting how discussion about Edwards and Schofield was initially shut down, yet similar talk about Wootton is allowed to continue.

Aside from one post which states an allegation as a fact (which I personally would edit if not removed by the mods), I can’t find anything that includes speculation or anything that could be seen as even remotely libellous. Very different to the other two matters.

Either way and onto a less controversial subject. Every day last week (which was a bog standard, no scandal or big news week), GBN hovered around shares of 0.6-0.9, Sky News at 0.9-1.3 and BBC News (Channel) at 1.2-1.5 which is very much the same as the last 10 months.

[Stooky Bill]

Huw Edwards and Phillip Schofield are big household names and there was incredible amounts of news coverage over both of them, across newspapers, television, and online, over a long period of time.

Dan Wootton is an gossip columnist whose career peak was 5 years ago, and the only real coverage has been in Private Eye. Coverage outside that only started last night in the relatively unknown, and not exactly the most trustworthy in moments past, Byline Times, timed to coincide with the start of his show on GB News. There was little prior period of gossip to pre-warn of an issue.

There was quite a lot last week and it was mentioned here too. Some more reliable than others though. 

Byline are a relatively new and small outfit (well multiple ones in fact) but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not likely to be accurate. Apparently they've been working on the story for 2 years and seem pretty sure it's all backed up with evidence. 

They have to be of course, getting it wrong would affect them more than other publications.

[bilky asko]

There was quite a lot last week and it was mentioned here too. Some more reliable than others though. 

Byline are a relatively new and small outfit (well multiple ones in fact) but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not likely to be accurate. Apparently they've been working on the story for 2 years and seem pretty sure it's all backed up with evidence. 

They have to be of course, getting it wrong would affect them more than other publications.

This is why I made it clear that they've not been known for supreme levels of accuracy in the past, but I don't think that necessarily reflects on the veracity of this story.