Tag: The Telegraph

Tamil Nadu: Collector Salutes Cop For ‘Going Beyond Call of Duty’

K.S. Kandasamy saluted inspector M. Allirani, who shifted a person’s dead body to the hospital even as his own family members wouldn’t, out of fear that he may have had COVID-19.

New Delhi: A Tamil Nadu district collector drew praise for saluting a lady police inspector for ‘going beyond her call of duty’ and taking the body of a man from a field to the Vellore General Hospital when even his family members were reluctant to touch him, fearing that he might have had COVID-19.

During the Independence Day celebrations, Thiruvannamalai district collector K.S. Kandasamy saluted inspector M. Allirani, who had acted beyond the call of duty and protocol two months ago.

During the event at the Armed Reserve Police grounds in Tiruvannamalai, the collector first took the salute from the podium and then presented Allirani with a medal, shield and a certificate. He then invited on to the podium. Thereafter, Kandasamy himself stepped down, turned towards Allirani and saluted her.

Through his gesture, Kandaswamy said he wanted to praise the inspector for her act. His gesture drew praise from the compere of the ceremony, who described Kandasamy as a ‘people’s collector’ who honoured the “inspector’s bravery and dedication as part of the frontline staff in this battle”.

Kandasamy later told The Telegraph, “I had recommended Allirani for the State Bravery Award, named after Kalpana Chawla (the Indian American astronaut who died in the 2003 space shuttle disaster) but that did not come through.”

He added:

“It isn’t only her; so many other officials from various departments are also working round the clock to contain the spread of the virus. Yet, the circumstances in which she personally removed an unclaimed body, shunned by everyone in the village, are what prompted me to honour her at the I-Day event in that manner. It was the most fitting way to acknowledge her brave, humanitarian act.”

On June 14, Allirani personally intervened and removed the body of 35-year-old Amavasai, who apparently died after touching an electric fence, to a hospital when other villagers – including the man’s mother and sister – were scared of doing so, fearing they might contract COVID-19. The incident occurred in Vandavasi near Thellar police station, with which Allirani is attached.

Allirani appealed to residents of the village to lend her a hand to shift the body, but no one came forward. The cop began dragging the body from the field on her own. Later, Kamal, an auto-rickshaw driver, who saw her, assisted her in lifting and putting the body in his three-wheeler, according to The Telegraph.

They then took the body to the Adukkamparai government hospital where again in the absence of any help, the two lifted the corpse and wheeled it into the hospital on a tricycle. Later, a post-mortem revealed that Amavasai was negative for the coronavirus.

The collector’s show of respect has, surprisingly, resulted in some controversy. The Federal quoted two unnamed police officers who said that “the rule book should not take a backseat while honouring someone”.

The report added that earlier, a police officer in Kerala found himself in a similar controversy after he saluted a group of locals who rescued passengers injured in the recent plane crash at Kozhikode. It was then pointed out that the rule books don’t permit a police officer to salute civilians. However, no disciplinary action was initiated.

Visva-Bharati ‘Postpones’ Lecture on Economy and Fascism by Prabhat Patnaik

Though the university has not stated the reason for the postponement, it has been linked to the economist’s criticism of the Modi government.

New Delhi: The department of economics and politics at the Visva-Bharati University in West Bengal has put on hold a lecture by economist and professor Prabhat Patnaik. While the department has not mentioned why it has put the lecture, which Patnaik said would have delved into economy and its links with fascism, on hold, it is being linked with the former JNU professor’s fierce criticism of the Narendra Modi government.

Patnaik, who lives in Delhi but is currently abroad, told The Telegraph that someone from the university called him to inform him that the second Ashok Rudra Memorial Lecture, which had been scheduled for March 12, has been postponed. “Then I sent them a mail to confirm and I was informed that they are not holding it right now,” he said.

The memorial lecture was instituted by the department of economics and politics of the central university last year under the special assistance programme of the University Grants Commission.

Unidentified sources told The Telegraph that the decision to withhold the lecture was taken by the board of studies of the department. “Everything for the lecture was ready…. Then came a verbal instruction from the authorities and it had to be withheld without giving a fresh date,” sources told the newspaper.

Sources also told the newspaper that the university had already utilised all the funds granted under the special assistance programme before March 31. “Our programme was on March 12. A fresh date cannot be obtained this financial year. It has to be done next fiscal and we would have to wait for funds, which means it’s postponed indefinitely,” explained the source.

According to The Telegraph, Visva Bharati’s vice chancellor Bidyut Chakraborty was unavailable for comment, while the univeristy’s public relations officer Anirban Sircaris on leave. An officer who is filling in for Sircar said he did not have any information on the issue.

Also Read: UK MP Critical of Centre’s Article 370 Move in Kashmir Denied Entry into India

Earlier this month, the National Institute of Design (NID) in Ahmedabad, one of the country’s top design schools, postponed its annual convocation day citing “unforeseen circumstances”, an unprecedented step. Reports had suggested that it may have been because the chief guest for the event was well-known dancer Mallika Sarabhai, who has also been a vocal critic of Modi and has opposed the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). Six top bureaucrats from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry are on NID’s management committee.

The Sarabhai family has closely been associated with the institute since its inception in 1961. As The Wire has reported, it was initially set up with the help of the Ford Foundation and Sarabhai’s parents, Mrinalini, also a dancer, and Vikram, a scientist. Mallika Sarabhai was also on the board of the institute.

Speaking to The Wire, Sarabhai said that she had not been given any reason for the sudden cancellation.

Babul Supriyo ‘Calls’ Newspaper Editor Demanding Apology For JU Incident Reporting

The BJP minister reportedly unleashed choice expletives at The Telegraph’s editor when he refused to apologise.

New Delhi: The Telegraph has run a report on its front page essaying a chain of events in which Union minister Babul Supriyo – currently at the centre of controversy over his role in spurring unrest at Kolkata’s Jadavpur University – reportedly rang the paper’s editor and in the course of demanding an apology for a headline and caption, used choice expletives.

“Around 7.50pm, the minister called Telegraph editor R. Rajagopal on his mobile phone during the evening news meeting. Supriyo introduced himself and said he would like an “amicable apology”,” the report on the paper reads. The report says that upon the editor’s insistence that the paper had nothing to apologise for, the BJP leader grew incensed and said the paper had “f***ing sold out.”

Also read: Unrest At Jadavpur University After Students Clash With Babul Supriyo

Since the events at JU on Thursday, in which Supriyo was allegedly heckled by students, photos and accounts have emerged which show that Supriyo himself could have indulged in a degree of violence against the students. While there have been reports on him issuing explicit threats to sloganeering students, along with widely circulated videos where he can be heard haranguing university vice-chancellor Suranjan Das, The Wire has not been able to verify those independently.

Telegraph, on Friday, ran a photo in which Supriyo is seen pulling at the shirt of a young man on campus. The headline the paper chose was “Babull at JU”. The caption mentions that the Supriyo was “grabbing a student by the shirt”.

The Telegraph’s front page on Friday.

This was what Supriyo evidently took exception to. All of Saturday, the MoS for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change tweeted fervently against what he labelled as misrepresentation of the role he played at JU.

He wrote that if the newspaper, “doesn’t apologise tomorrow for their false biased reporting, I’ll sue them.” He first tagged the UK Telegraph in his tweet and rectified it with a subsequent tweet.

Supriyo carried the demand for an apology forward by making a call to editor Rajagopal, reports Telegraph. At first, Supriyo reportedly complained that he had not elbowed anyone. His tweet (above) also uses the term ‘elbowing’. When Rajagopal sought to clarify that the newspaper had made no such claim, Supriyo allegedly shifted focus on the pun on his name in the headline, stressed that he was a “Central minister,” asked the editor if he was a gentleman before unleashing the expletives.

According to the paper, Rajagopal told him that no apology would be forthcoming and that Supriyo should send the paper a legal notice or letter should he demand legal action be taken.

Also read: The Fate of Press Freedom in India Over the Years

Supriyo allegedly also told Rajagopal that he was recording the conversation. The call was reportedly cut by Rajagopal.

Supriyo’s slew of tweets, since the conversation ended, corroborate many of the claims made by the paper on the salient points of the conversation. The minister has, however, said the editor abused him in “filthy lingo”.

He also shifted focus of his grouse from the use of the term “elbowed” to “grabbing the shirt”.

The singer turned politician has also retweeted several comments on the need for regulation of media.

UK Newspapers Conflicted Over Crowning of Boris Johnson as PM

Johnson was broadly lampooned as a clown, denounced as a villain, or hailed as the new saviour of Brexit on Wednesday morning.


UK’s newspaper subeditors had ample time to compose the front pages that would mark a new era in British politics.

It was seen as a fait accompli weeks ago that Boris Johnson would beat his rival Jeremy Hunt to succeed Theresa May as Britain’s next Brexit prime minister. In the meantime, headline writers have allowed their imaginations to run wild – tempered only by political affiliation.

Also read: Prime Minister Boris Johnson: The Jester Takes the Throne

Accordingly, Johnson was broadly lampooned as a clown, denounced as a villain, or hailed as the new saviour of Brexit on Wednesday morning.

The left-leaning Daily Mirror, for example, focused on Johnson’s reputation for jokey publicity stunts, and bemoaned the fact that he would be Number 10 Downing Street’s next occupant.

“It’s really not funny any more…” went the front-page headline.

Mirror political editor Pippa Crear questioned his ability to remain in office for long, citing Johnson’s “wafer-thin” majority in parliament, his hardline pledges on Brexit, and a “deeply divided” Conservative Party.

“Mr Johnson will need more than luck,” she added.

Meanwhile, the right-of-centre Daily Express gleefully pronounced Johnson’s imminent arrival in the top job as a wind of change.

“Hang on to your hats…Here comes Boris!”

“EU bureaucrats and doom-mongers be warned,” the front-page strapline advised.

The newspaper’s political editor Macer Hall looked forward to the establishment of a “Cabinet for Modern Britain.” He predicted new roles for women and those from ethnic minorities, in a government that would “showcase all the talents.”

The Daily Telegraph, which has been foremost in cheerleading for Johnson, a former correspondent and hitherto columnist, recalled Johnson’s victory speech.

“I’m the dude,” said the headline, referring to Johnson use of the word in a quip during his address to party colleagues.

The newspaper featured a full-length photo of Johnson delivering a trademark wacky salute. It also carried a column from former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, whose Brexit Party has offered to work with the Conservatives to deliver Britain’s exit from the EU by the end of October.

“With my party’s help, we can resolve Brexit,” Farage opined.

Read more: Boris Johnson’s ties with Steve Bannon exposed

The traditionally left-wing Guardian newspaper posed a question in its headline.

“An ambition is fulfilled. But what next for Britain?”

Guardian columnist Rafael Behr said Britain warned that Johnson could prove ineffective in office, but be difficult to dislodge.

“Recent history offers ample proof that incompetent leadership can endure with the help of a ruthless praetorian guard, a regiment of loyal fans and disorganized enemies,” said Behr.

Also read: Boris Johnson to Use ‘Personal’ Modi Connect to Deepen India-UK Relationship

Nowhere was the split on Johnson better summed up than by the Sun and its sister newspaper in Scotland. England’s best-selling tabloid The Sun riffed excitedly on the Beatles classic “Hey Jude” with a splash headline  “Hey Dude!”

“Bring on Boris,” the paper’s main editorial declared excitedly.

“Boris Johnson now has a thumping ­mandate from his party and the potential to be a fantastic Prime Minister. But his task is monumental — and he has to be smarter about it than his predecessor,” ran the editorial.

However, the Scottish Sun took a different tone, given that Johnson, and Brexit, poll far less well with voters, and readers, north of the border.

While the English edition basked in Johnson’s moment of glory – “Bojo is our new PM!” – its Scottish version adopted a Disney “Toy Story” theme to warn of “Blundering Bojo” and “No Deal Chaos.”

While the UK as a whole voted narrowly in favour of leaving the EU, Scotland voted by a considerable margin to stay in the bloc.

Scottish National Party leader Nicola Sturgeon vowed to work to block Johnson’s plan for a no-deal Brexit, “which would do catastrophic harm to Scotland.”

This article was originally published on Deutsche Welle.

Modi Govt Freezes Ads Placed in Times of India, The Hindu and The Telegraph

“The undemocratic and megalomaniac style of stopping government advertisement is a message to media from this government to toe its line,” Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said.

New Delhi: The Narendra Modi government has cut off advertisements to at least three major newspaper groups in a move that executives and an opposition leader said was likely retaliation for unfavourable reports.

Critics have said that freedom of the press has been under attack since Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government first took office in 2014 and journalists have complained of intimidation for writing critical stories.

Now the big newspaper groups, which have a combined monthly readership of more than 26 million, say they are being starved of government ads worth millions of rupees that began even before Modi was elected to power last month with a landslide mandate.

“There is a freeze,” an executive at Bennett, Coleman & Co that controls the Times of India and the Economic Times, among the country’s biggest English-language newspapers, said. “Could be (because of) some reports they were unhappy with,” the executive said, seeking anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the press.

Also read: The Mainstream Media Is No Ally for Those Fighting the Cult of Narendra Modi

Around 15% of the Times group’s advertising comes from the government, the executive said. The ads are mostly government tenders for contracts as well as publicising government schemes.

The ABP Group, which publishes The Telegraph that has run reports questioning Modi’s record on everything from national security to unemployment, has seen a similar 15% drop in government advertisements for around six months, two company officials said.

“Once you don’t toe the government line in your editorial coverage and you write anything against the government, then obviously the only way they can penalise you (is) to choke your advertising supply,” the first ABP official said.

The second ABP official said that there had been no communication from the government, and the company was looking to other sources to plug the gap.

“Press freedom must be maintained and it will be maintained despite these things,” the official said. Both also sought anonymity.

Satyendra Prakash, director general of the Bureau of Outreach and Communication, the agency responsible for advertisements from the federal government, did not reply to Reuters emails or phone calls seeking comment.

But a spokesman for Modi’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party said the press in India remained fully free.

Nalin Kohli said there was ample criticism against the ruling party in newspapers and on TV news channels. “That’s testimony of freedom of speech,” he said, “The suggestion that the BJP is throttling free press is ridiculous.”

Also read: Pro-BJP or Anti-BJP: Inside the Modi-Shah Media Tracking ‘War Rooms’

India ranked 140th out of 180 in the 2019 World Press Freedom Index, lower than countries like Afghanistan, Myanmar and the Philippines. It ranked 80th out of 139 countries surveyed when the index was started in 2002.

The Hindu newspaper group also saw government advertising plunge after publishing investigative stories on a multi-billion dollar deal to buy combat planes from France’s Dassault that strengthened an opposition campaign alleging government wrongdoing, a company official said.

The government rejected the accusation.

A leader of the main opposition Congress told parliament this week the government was trying to bring the three newspaper groups to heel.

“The undemocratic and megalomaniac style of stopping government advertisement is a message to media from this government to toe its line,” Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said.

Chief executive officers of all three newspaper groups did not respond to Reuters emails.

(Reuters) 

British PM May Seeks More Time, Promises Brexit Deal Vote by March 12

As the Brexit crisis goes down to the wire, May said a so-called “meaningful vote” would not take place this week as expected.

Egypt: Prime Minister Theresa May put off a vote in parliament on her Brexit deal until as late as March 12 – just 17 days before Britain is due to leave the EU – setting up a showdown this week with lawmakers who accuse her of running out the clock.

As the Brexit crisis goes down to the wire, May said a so-called “meaningful vote” would not take place this week as expected. Parliament will still hold a series of Brexit votes on Wednesday, but May’s deal itself will not be on the table.

On her way to an EU-Middle East summit, May said she is close to bringing home changes to her agreement that would satisfy objections to it, but needed time for meetings with European leaders which meant it would not be ready this week.

“We won’t bring a meaningful vote to parliament this week but we will ensure that that happens by the 12th of March,” May told reporters on board her plane. “It is still within our grasp to leave the European Union with a deal on the 29th of March and that is what we are working to do.”

Opponents accuse her of deliberately running out the clock, so as to force parliament to choose between a deal it has already rejected or leaving the EU with no deal at all, which businesses say would destroy their supply chains.

Both May’s Conservatives and the main opposition Labour Party are formally committed to exiting the EU in line with a 2016 referendum vote, but both parties are internally divided over how or even whether to do so.

Cabinet split

Before May set off for Egypt, three members of her cabinet publicly split with government policy and said they would side with rebels and opposition parties to stop a no-deal Brexit.

Yvette Cooper, an opposition Labour lawmaker who has proposed a bill that would block a no-deal Brexit, said May’s “last minute announcement that she won’t put a deal to parliament this week, and is leaving it until just two weeks before Brexit day, is utterly shambolic and irresponsible.”

“She cannot just keep drifting and dithering like this or there is a real risk our whole country tumbles off a cliff edge into a chaotic no deal that no one is ready for and that would hit food prices, medicine supplies, manufacturing and security.”

Some lawmakers will seek to grab control of Brexit in Wednesday’s series of votes, though such attempts have previously been defeated as May sought more time to get a deal.

Senior Labour figures said that the main opposition party was moving closer to supporting another Brexit referendum and could do so as soon as early as this week.

9 Labour lawmakers and three Conservatives quit their parties last week in the biggest shakeup of its kind in British politics for decades, raising the prospect of further defections from both parties.

The British parliament voted 432-202 against May’s deal in January, a defeat by the biggest margin in modern British history. May says she can still win support for it if EU leaders ease rules intended to ensure no hard land border ever appears between British-ruled Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland.

European Council President Donald Tusk told May that the EU needs clarity that whatever the bloc might offer would command a majority in the British parliament, before a summit of EU leaders scheduled for March 21-22, an EU official said.

EU officials have considered many theoretical scenarios, including an extension of Brexit for up to two years, though it is unclear if such a delay would resolve the current impasse.

The EU has ruled out reopening the withdrawal agreement. Both sides are looking at a possible legal addendum to reassure lawmakers who worry that the Irish border plans could keep Britain trapped in the EU’s orbit for years to come.

But Europeans sound increasingly frustrated at Britain’s political chaos: “You need two to dance tango, and I know how to dance,” European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said when asked if he was running out of things to give on Brexit. “I have a certain Brexit fatigue.”

Did Rupert Murdoch Choose Britain’s New Prime Minister?

Leadson’s sudden withdrawal from the race and a vague process for selecting May have certainly raised many doubts about internal democracy in Conservative Party.

Andrea Leadson’s sudden withdrawal from the race and a vague process for selecting May have certainly raised many doubts about internal democracy in Conservative Party.

Britain's Prime Minister, Theresa May, speaks to the media outside number 10 Downing Street, in central London, Britain July 13, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Toby Melville

Britain’s Prime Minister, Theresa May, speaks to the media outside number 10 Downing Street, in central London, Britain July 13, 2016. Credit: Reuters/Toby Melville

When Prime Minister David Cameron announced on Monday that he would be moving out of 10 Downing Street quite a bit sooner than planned, not in September, but on Wednesday — leaving the house, the office, and the cat to his successor, Theresa May — the abrupt end to his lame duck tenure seemed like a weight off his shoulders. And indeed Cameron was overheard humming a jaunty tune as he made his own personal Brexit, stage left.

Saturday’s Times:
Being a mother gives me edge on May — Leadsom#tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/w0ZW0b1jow

— Nick Sutton (@suttonnick) July 8, 2016

But the backroom process through which the British Conservative Party had suddenly chosen May as its new leader, and hence prime minister – cutting short a campaign which was supposed to take two months and end with more than 120,000 members of the party’s grassroots getting to vote either for her or her rival, Andrea Leadsom – left many troubling questions unresolved.

To start with, there was the fact that May will now take office having secured just 199 votes for the position, all coming from Conservative members of Parliament, in a ballot that was supposed to choose not the prime minister, but just the two nominees with the most support from their fellow lawmakers. In effect, the Conservative Party’s equivalent of super delegates just short-circuited even the pretense of democracy and selected the country’s leader from among their own ranks.

There is also the fact that May, unlike Leadsom, had opposed the UK’s withdrawal from the EU before last month’s referendum vote in favor of a British exit imposed that course of action on the next government. Now Cameron is leaving office because he lost the campaign against Brexit but is handing over responsibility for implementing it to a new prime minister who agrees with him that it is a bad idea. May taking office to implement a policy she thinks unwise is perhaps the clearest proof that the referendum has created a crisis in which representative democracy and direct democracy are in direct conflict.

Then there was the suggestion from some, including Leadsom’s campaign manager, Tim Loughton, that the candidate’s downfall had been less her own doing than a sort of coup brought about by a vast, right-wing conspiracy of media barons, led by Rupert Murdoch, who published “an onslaught of often very personal attacks from colleagues and journalists.”

To unpack this allegation, it is important to understand that May’s elevation to party leader came about after Leadsom abruptly ended her own campaign on Monday, July 11, choosing to withdraw rather than face further criticism over ill-advised remarks she made three days earlier to The Times, the jewel in the crown of Murdoch’s British newspaper empire. In an interview splashed across the front page of that newspaper on Saturday, July 9, Leadsom had expounded on how being a mother made her more fit to lead the nation than her rival, May, who is childless.

In the interview, Leadsom, who had frequently used the phrase ‘as a mum’ in speeches calling for Britain to leave the EU, was asked how that was relevant to her politics. She responded, “I don’t really know Theresa very well but I am sure she will be really, really sad she doesn’t have children, so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t,’ do you know wht I mean, because I think that would be really horrible, but genuinely I feel that being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.” “She possibly has nieces, nephews, lots of people,” Leadsom continued, “but I have children who are going to have children who will directly be a part of what happens next.” Over the weekend, the candidate tried and failed quite spectacularly to spin her way out of the ensuing mess by claiming that she had been misquoted. https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/751531686987501570?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/751535316788477952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/751539694966538240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 

On social networks, the candidate’s supporters even shared a note of apology from the newspaper on Twitter, before it was exposed as an obvious fake.

 

Unfortunately for Leadsom, her demand that the newspaper release a transcript of her remarks led The Times to publish not just the text but the audio of her exchange with the writer Rachel Sylvester, which left no doubt that she had indeed been quoted accurately.

While The Times‘ journalism was vindicated, Loughton was not alone in wondering if the political preferences of the paper’s owner had played a role in the weight given to Leadsom’s remarks. In her letter explaining her withdrawal from the race, Leadsom made no mention of the avalanche of bad press triggered by her comments, but the man standing directly behind her as she read it aloud to the press, her campaign manager, quickly blamed the media.

“It is absolutely not the job of media commentators to ‘big up’ politicians whether in this leadership contest or elsewhere in politics,” Loughton wrote. “But neither should it be their compulsion constantly to try to trip them up. Using spin and underhand tactics against decent people whose prime motivation is to serve has for too long undermined the confidence of the public in our politics.” Loughton was clearly referring to the disastrous impact of Leadsom’s interview with The Times, but, as the Guardian media columnist Roy Greenslade observed, before Leadsom withdrew on Monday, July 11, she looked set to be overwhelmed by uniformly negative coverage from Britain’s most influential conservative-leaning papers. In addition to the relatively soberTimes, Leadsom was being torn apart by the populist Sun, also owned by Murdoch, as well as The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. By Monday, July 11 morning, the editors of all four papers had come out openly in favor of May. The leading editorial in Monday July 11 issue of The Sun urged Leadsom to drop out. “IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.” “Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.” “She was ridiculed by fellow Tory MPs for her hustings performance, ex-colleagues questioned key parts of her CV, and her slur on Theresa May having no children drew wide condemnation.” While it appears certain that the hostility of Murdoch’s two papers – one aimed at the business class and the other at the working class – indeed played a role in pressing Leadsom to withdraw in favor of May, it seems likely that the man who brought London tabloid-style journalism to the American airwaves with Fox News was, in fact, forced to settle for his second choice. On the eve of last week’s vote to narrow the list of potential prime ministers to two Conservatives, the editors of The Times and The Sun attacked Leadsom in similar terms as too inexperienced for the job, and promoted the candidacy of Michael Gove, the justice minister, who had been a leader of the anti-EU campaign before the referendum. Gove, whose most important role in the succession drama was undercutting support for his former ally, Boris Johnson, by denouncing the former London mayor and Telegraph columnist as unprepared to be prime minister, is, perhaps not coincidentally, a Times columnist. The day before Gove finally withdrew his support from Johnson, a leaked email from his wife, Sarah Vine, suggested that both Murdoch and Paul Dacre, The Daily Mail editor, “instinctively dislike Boris,” and would not support him unless he offered assurances about going ahead with a complete withdrawal from the EU. Like her husband and Johnson, Vine has close ties to the right-leaning papers, and is also a columnist, in her case, for The Daily Mail.

Although The Times had cautiously editorialised in favor of remaining in the EU, The Sun had led the charge for leaving the union. Murdoch himself has made no secret of his distaste for the EU. “When I go into Downing Street they do what I say,” Murdoch once told Anthony Hilton, the former business editor of The Times. “When I go to Brussels they take no notice.” Just before Gove’s surprise announcement that he was entering the race to lead the country, Murdoch made his joy at the outcome of the referendum clear. Speaking at The Times CEO Summit, Murdoch called the decision to leave the EU, “like a prison break,” but expressed concern that Johnson might look for a way to stay in if he became prime minister. Then the newspaper’s owner urged Gove, who attended the mogul’s wedding to Jerry Hall in May, to get into the race.

 

 

 

 

When Gove then failed to secure enough support from his fellow lawmakers to be one of the two nominees in the final stage of the leadership election, however – and May made a clear statement that she would oversee a complete withdrawal from the EU, pledging that “Brexit means Brexit” – it seems clear that the editors of Murdoch’s papers, like most Conservative MPs, came to see Leadsom as a loose cannon better removed from the race.

By Tuesday, July 12 morning, The Sun was cheering May’s selection, even if doing so in the most sexist possible terms, by creating a photo-montage that suggested her leopard-print shoes were appropriate for the new dominatrix of the Conservative Party.

This article was originally published in The Intercept. Read the original article.

After the Brexit: Media Reaction to the UK Vote to Leave the EU

Many British media outlets were vociferous about their support ahead of the referendum, and have maintained that standard since the results.

Many British media outlets were vociferous about their support ahead of the referendum and have maintained that standard since the results.

A Brexit supporter holds a Union Flag at a Vote Leave rally in London. Credit:Reuters

A Brexit supporter holds a Union Flag at a Vote Leave rally in London. Credit:Reuters

The UK has voted to leave the European Union in a historic referendum dubbed the ‘Brexit’. In a contest that went down to the wire, the leave camp emerged victorious with 51.9% of the vote.

Given the unprecedented historic nature of the vote, financial markets have reacted as expected to the UK exiting the European grouping – world financial markets dived and the pound suffered its biggest one-day fall in history, plunging more than 10% against the dollar to hit levels last seen in 1985. The vote heralds the biggest global financial shock since the 2008 economic crisis, this time with interest rates around the world already at or near zero, stripping policymakers of the means to fight it, Reuters reports.

The Brexit debate divided the UK polity in the run up to the June 23 vote, and many, including those in government, held disparaging views. Prime Minister David Cameron, for instance, helmed the remain camp, a decision that has since led him to announce his resignation in light of the Brexit verdict. Scores of Conservative MPs, including justice secretary Michael Gove and former London mayor Boris Johnson, backed Britain leaving the union.

The BBC was among the first to call the result while the votes were still being counted. Many British media outlets were vociferous about their support ahead of the referendum, and have maintained that standard since the results.

BBC calls the Brexit result.

BBC calls the Brexit result.

“Cameron is finished”

Ahead of Cameron announcing his resignation, The Telegraph called the vote the end of the prime minister. “David Cameron is finished, heading for a place in history as the prime minister who gambled with Britain’s place in the EU and his own career, and lost.”

The Guardian, a paper that makes no bones about its generally liberal bent, declared its support for the remain camp on May 9 in an editorial that read, “The Guardian will make no apology, between now and June 23, for making the case for Britain in Europe as clearly, as honestly and as insistently as possible.” In a piece published in the early hours of June 24, when the results of the vote were clear, the Guardian referred to Brexit as an “earthquake”, “the rubble [from which] will take years to clear”.

It continued, “Politics as practised for a generation is upended; traditional party allegiances are shredded; the prime minister’s authority is bust – and that is just the parochial domestic fallout. A whole continent looks on in trepidation. It was meant to be unthinkable, now the thought has become action. Europe cannot be the same again”.

On the other end of the spectrum the Daily Mail, the UK’s second best-selling newspaper, came out in support of the UK leaving the EU on June 21. In the run up to the vote, it featured headlines such as “Four Big EU Lies” on its front page, and wrote in a different piece, “The historic result could see us embarking on a path to an enlightened era of prosperous global trade, freed from the shackles of unelected Brussels bureaucracy. Or if you listen to the Remain camp, it could be the end of Western civilisation, with the continent descending into war and pensioners going hungry”.

The Economist, which backed remaining, titled its primary post-Brexit feature “A Tragic Split” and identified the driving force behind the leave camp as “angry populism”.  It ended another piece titled, “After the Vote, Chaos” by saying, “This vote will reverberate for years. The economy will suffer, as will the political establishment. June 23rd will be a landmark in British and European history”.

The Times also asserted its pro-remain stance, despite its proprietor, media mogul Rupert Murdoch, being sceptical of Brussels. Known for being the paper of choice for the economic and political elite, it announced which outcome it favours with the headline, “Why Remain is Best for Britain” and posited that a vote for leaving would create “unknown and alarming consequences” for the UK and Europe.

Taking a harsher line on Brexit, the Irish Times lambasted the leave camp, and called the possibility of leaving a “nightmare”.

International media reaction

Across many non-UK European publications, forecasts were dire and pro-remain sentiments were widespread. In an editorial, French broadsheet Le Monde stated, “…don’t let the sirens of a fake independence pull you away from the continent. Just as in 1815, your future is in Europe.”

Leading German publication Bild ran a headline that dubbed the result “Europe’s Darkest Day” and featured an earlier headline that commented, quite plainly, “What a Brex-shit”. Swedish business newspaper Dagens Industri read, “We are all like you – proud and headstrong with special relationships to each other. And we have a club. Don’t leave it.”

Across the Atlantic, many media outlets took a disparaging view of the vote. The New York Times highlighted the misguided and “ill-defined frustration” that propelled Euroskepticism, and wrote, “This British version of “make America great again” is every bit as illusory as Donald Trump’s slogan — and just as potentially dangerous, for Britain and for its European and North American partners.”

The Los Angeles Times said “British voters willfully walked off a cliff” by deciding to leave the EU, and that the vote “is a defeat for Britain, Europe and the global economy”.