Owen. Not getting it or goady? Sometimes it’s hard to tell.

which meant I found the teacher's original blogpost about the situation. I'm sure Owen is capable of doing the same.
You can't take just reading blog post opinions as your news source.
You have to verify the details in it.
Not just blindly take it as truth in a there you go, I've checked it now as the blog post says it's true, it must be.
It doesn't work like that.

Just to remind you all of what he said

I need your help!

This "story" - claiming 60 girls drove a girl out of a school for "questioning trans ideology" - doesn't include their side of the story or even name the school.

I want to speak anonymously to these girls for their story, so please RT!

The scare quotes around story are meant to signify what? That it is fictitious? The emphasis on the school remaining unnamed is meant to signify what? That it is fictitious?

I am not a journalist but I have been doing some light background reading, which meant I found the teacher's original blogpost about the situation. I'm sure Owen is capable of doing the same.

You'll never believe this, but it contains some quotes from the "other side"!

extract

It is both heartening and interesting that some of those fired up students on that day have in hindsight somewhat changed their position. I spoke to one of the girls today who was at the centre of the ‘outraged’ group and who had taken on the role as chief spokesperson. She admitted that they’d gone too far and that she regretted it. She also, without any prompting, added that she thought that there is a lot of ideology around the issue and that they should be properly debating these things. Good on her. Lets bring it on. However this would be too late to help the girl who was most wounded by this situation. The damage here is done.

He could have privately sent a text message to the peer involved and asked her what her account was.

Unless she thinks he's a misogynist too and she's refused to give him her number...

As I think I mentioned before, there are journalistic ways of verifying or falsifying this event. No need to go on Twitter and to launch a mob to do the investigation (which will result in doxxing of young people doing their exams). He could have done it in a quiet manner without advertising that he was going to do it beforehand. Had he really wished to research the piece.

Question: so it's apparently conspiracy thinking to wonder whether Owen has material on his boss, and if that's dissuading her from pulling him into line.

So why isn't it conspiracy thinking, when Owen Jones doubts this article in the Times? What do you, Janet, think needs to be verified?

The school's existence? That a female peer spoke at it? That any bullying might have happened?

What do you think is being lied about? Multiple sources have been quoted, although anonymised. Do you think it's a conspiracy on the part of the Times?

I think positioning yourself as the Guardian's only trans ally - whether that's correct or not - is actually a pretty smart move. It almost makes me sympathise with Katharine Viner.

I think at some point he's said to Kath Viner that he's this magical bridge for the Gordian to connect with their American readership, so that's her told isn't it?

Their gain (more of OJ's words) is the UK's loss (more of OJ's words).

I saw him tweet that once, and I asked myself, "so what are Zoe Williams and Elle Hunt? Chopped liver? And what about Fred McConnell, 'seahorse dad'?"

I suppose they're all female, and therefore they don't exist to Owen until they put a foot wrong, whereupon he strikes like a venomous viper.

It's not just this episode is it. LOJ definitely has something over his editor.

he has styled himself as the only trans ally at the guardian, can you imagine what reaction they would get if they binned him.

The guardian have brought it on themselves though

Pretending these points have not been answered and starting all over again is not an effective form of argument.

It's not just this episode is it. LOJ definitely has something over his editor.

So it’s not strange to you, when a woman is attacked, for a male columnist to think that the first thing to do is to organise a chat with her attackers?

I do wonder what he has over his editor that she lets him get away with his behaviour
Sorry, but I do have to wonder what leads you to even think down this path?
Why would wanting to verify a news story lead to paranoia/conspiracy theory hints?!

I am not a journalist, but I would personally directly approach the 'female peer' who spoke at the school. There's a very narrow shortlist of candidates it could be, and if I'm right, he should already have her phone number. He could send a text asking her to check her diary.

Surprising he hasn't thought of this. But then, all of his behaviour here has been very for-display-purposes-only.

We keep getting told that safeguarding is a 'transphobic dog whistle' so perhaps that's why he doesn't think it important.

Yep! The scary part, writ loud!

He could have asked one of the actual journalists at the Guardian to follow-up for him and try to get some more information.

Doing this via Twitter and without being a journalist himself is a problem.

I do wonder what he has over his editor that she lets him get away with his behaviour.

Then why is he asking on Twitter? Where responses will be public, visible, repeated.

All he has to do is the same due diligence other journalists did (how the hell do you think this got into multiple media sites in the first place - especially as there seem to be at least 2 sources used?) , ask his mates maybe. The he could privately gain that information and seek out 'all sides' without blaring across the Twitterverse.

Don't be so quick to leap to his defence, He knows exactly what he is doing, has done it before and will, doyubtless do it again!

She's 18, she is very young but she doesn't need her "guardian" involved and I'm sure OJ knows that. What he is doing is unethical in and of itself.

You've rather interestingly completely avoided the first part of my post -

'He's really not able to get such details through other, considerably more ethical, avenues rather than...'

'Children' aside (our school start age runs differently to England but I'm assuming that kids currently in the 2nd year of sixth form have birthdays between now and end of August), it's difficult to believe that there's no other way to gain information than trawling Twitter.

Agree with above that OJ doesn't seem to understand the very good reasons why the Times didn't name the School. We keep getting told that safeguarding is a 'transphobic dog whistle' so perhaps that's why he doesn't think it important.

I think the "children" issue is a bit of a red herring. The girls in question will almost all be 18 years old and so legally adult and able to talk to journalists without the knowledge or consent of a parent or guardian. The real concern is that the Times has taken care to protect the anonymity of the school and the girl, and it has done so for good reasons that OJ apparently doesn't understand.

Yes, after people had pointed out how creepy his original request was.

Let’s not pretend he’s searching for objective truth here, he’s on a mission to back the attackers and frame the victim as a transphobe, and he knows that using Twitter to do this risks having her name becoming public.

avenues rather than trawling for details by asking children to contact him (a grown man) through private messages?
He said he would not be speaking to anyone without their guardian.

So then some other columnist will have to seek out a child at the school to "verify" Owrn's account and confirm that the school exists, then.

At this rate, the entirety of the fourth estate will know the name of that school, the bullied girl, and the names of the ringleaders. And from there it will only travel.

Surely he doesn't just expect them to trust him, because it's him saying it?

I suspect that he does.

So how does that work.

Jones doubts the journalists at the Times because they haven't named the school. He makes a big thing of stating this. He gets lots of replies on social media agreeing with him and doubting the school exists.

So how does he expect his readership to react when he publishes his article, if he doesn't name the school? Surely he doesn't just expect them to trust him, because it's him saying it? He could be making it all up, about a completely imaginary school!