WHAT do you do if you’re a member of the London commentariat and a big news story breaks in Scotland?
First, check what you know about Scotland. What’s the capital? Who’s first minister? All the simple stuff.
But there’s a problem. This big breaking news story involves somebody named James Hamilton. Who is he exactly?
No problem, to wikipedia it is.
That may sound like a joke, but it’s seemingly the exact thought process one Telegraph columnist and soon-to-be reporter for Andrew Neil’s GB News had yesterday.
When Tom Harwood made it to Hamilton’s wikipedia page, he found something interesting.
News nose twitching, Harwood couldn’t wait to tweet what he’d found.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon did not breach ministerial code, James Hamilton finds
It seems that Hamilton, the lawyer brought in to conduct an independent investigation into whether Nicola Sturgeon had broken the ministerial code just as he had previously done in Wales, was a member of the SNP!
The person brought in to conduct an independent inquiry into the leader of the SNP was a member of that very party!
Can you believe it?
Why had this huge news not been in the media until now? Why had the baying Unionist attack dogs not already found this key piece of trivia? Why had it taken Harwood going on a wikipedia page to reveal the truth?
Well, as you may have guessed, because it is a complete fabrication.
That didn’t stop Guido Fawkes’s brightest though, as he got tweeting. He wrote: “Interesting edits taking place on James Hamilton's wikipedia page today.
“Some users seem intent on removing lines stating that the report author is a former SNP adviser and member of the party.
“Interesting given his report clears Sturgeon…”
Britain's dimmest right-wing grifters spreading a new conspiracy theory this evening. Fact check: No, James Hamilton was not a member of and advisor to the SNP.
— Ross Greer (@Ross_Greer) March 22, 2021
But sure, we have nothing to worry about from GB News https://t.co/kATelxVqzo
Perhaps, as one Scott Wortley suggested: "Some users are intent on removing this because James Hamilton is a highly regarded Irish lawyer, was the Irish director of public prosecutions, and is not and has not been a member of the Scottish National Party?"
Labour activist Duncan Hothersall added: "Probably because those lines were made up bollocks."
In a now deleted second tweet, Harwood went on: “Politician cleared by member of said politician's own party. Same energy”, alongside two images, one of the Sturgeon story, and another of Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for Harwood, his scoop didn’t go unnoticed.
Ross Greer MSP wrote: “Britain's dimmest right-wing grifters spreading a new conspiracy theory this evening. Fact check: No, James Hamilton was not a member of and advisor to the SNP.
“But sure, we have nothing to worry about from GB News.”
Harwood was recently hired to Andrew Neil’s newly announced news channel, which has been likened to Fox News in the US.
Other Twitter users (the ones who didn’t just take Harwood’s claims at face value at least) were quick to slam the Guido Fawkes writer.
The University of Glasgow's Ewan Gibbs wrote: "This is what deskilling and hollowing out of journalism looks like.
"Tom is the sad equivalent of guys that were paid to stand guard outside closed down factories to protect the remains of buildings where skilled people used to work."
This is what deskilling and hollowing out of journalism looks like. Tom is the sad equivalent of guys that were paid to stand guard outside closed down factories to protect the remains of buildings where skilled people used to work. https://t.co/K6XRihJBVZ
— Ewan Gibbs (@ewangibbs) March 22, 2021
“Wannabe Telegraph 'journalist' inadvertently reveals perils of only relying on Wikipedia for 'facts' to try and score easy political points against the SNP. Oh dear”, one wrote.
“Clearly Tom hasn’t had the typical primary school talk of: ‘Wikipedia is not a legitimate source’”, another added.
One Ross McNulty wrote: “Here we see a ‘journalist’ who is about to join up with GB News sharing bogus, uncited Wikipedia edits to suit a particular political agenda! Looking forward to a similar quality and nature of output when the channel launches.”
Any uncited reference to Hamilton being a member of the SNP has since been removed from the wikipedia page, with the admins saying the contributions appeared to be acts of “vandalism”.
READ MORE: Holyrood harassment complaints inquiry publishes findings on Alex Salmond case
When The National asked Harwood about his claims, he insisted he hadn’t made any.
He suggested that us, Greer, and by extension everyone else, had "misread the tweet”.
Harwood went on: “I have not made any claims. The tweet … says that Hamilton's Wikipedia page has been edited today removing claims he was associated with the SNP. That's not a value judgement, that's a report.”
Asked why his second tweet, which said: “Politician cleared by member of said politician's own party”, had now been deleted, Harwood said: “The ‘same energy’ meme I posted was inappropriately being interpreted as a report, so I have taken it down to avoid confusion.”
So the first tweet was a report, but the second tweet (sent directly after and connected to the first) was not.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel