Bogus claim about Labour made the front page, but neutrality breaks out when it's Osborne
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has crunched the numbers and says George Osborne’s budget will leave 3 million people on average £1000 a year worse off.
This and other findings by the IFS have been covered by the Tory press – who apparently feel no shame at having trumpeted the same budget just 24 hours ago.
But there was another story a few months ago which was treated very differently.
The Times newspaper ran a front page story on Friday, April 24, claiming a Labour government would mean £1000 more tax for ‘every working family’. (Click to enlarge.)
Just over a week later, on May 2, the paper admitted this was completely wrong.
It ran a correction, and on June 19 was forced by the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) to run the correction on its front page.
So a false and baseless claim – disproved even in the original story, as the correction makes clear – was plastered on the front of the former newspaper of record weeks before the election.
But when families are actually facing a £1000 raid on their bank balances, its just one story among many in the budget coverage.
As with Osborne’s aping of Ed Miliband’s pledge to abolish non-dom status, the difference in coverage reveals the party bias of British newspapers.
Today’s Times even has a cartoon with George Osborne dressed as the claymation character Wallace, with a naked Miliband in the background – Osborne has ‘stolen Labour’s clothes’.
But is that a good thing? Does the Times support any policy, even Labour policies, if they are brought in by the Conservative party?
Adam Barnett is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow MediaWatch on Twitter
Read more:
Times runs ‘Labour’s £1,000 tax on families’ correction on front page after IPSO ruling
Tory press shirks its duty and waves pom-poms for Osborne’s budget
Sign up for our weekly email by clicking here.
15 Responses to “The Times ran false ‘£1000 on families’ story. Now it’s true, where are the headlines?”
damon
I’m no supporter of Tories and their cuts by any means – But:
It is slightly annoying the way that talk about things like this is just partisan warfare.
Just because some people will see a reduction in their benefits isn’t necessarily a terrible thing.
Plenty of people have been using tax credits as a way of getting more money and working less hours.
Choosing to work less hours. I know people who have done this.
A hard nosed American capitalist would be saying ”just get more hours”.
I’ve never qualified for tax credits and that’s actually what I have to do.
On £9 an hour I’d love to have had my wages topped up when my agency couldn’t give me 40 hours a week. a
And that was so often that I had to get a more reliable job.
I saw one mum crying on the news because she was a part time librarian and relied on the tax credits she got. Working part time like that is like half-way being unemployed. You don’t have the job centre breathing down your neck, but you don’t have to put a full week in either.
I’d do it if I could. But what I have to do is look for more hours, like working every other Saturday too.
It’s a tough old life.
stevep
How far the Times has fallen.
Cole
It’s a truly terrible paper now. I recently fell upon a couple of copies from the 1960s – and, guess what, it was a decent well, written paper. Of course it was basically Tory, but it clearly knew the difference between facts and opinion, unlike Murdoch’s tacky rag.
MarthaFErvin
Best Quality performance leftfootforward…. <…… Find Here
Keith M
The Times is yet another mouthpiece for the Aussie turned American, Murdoch, who thinks he can dictate his vile policies to governments. Time he was reined in.