“This is a team effort.”
“I’m extremely grateful.”
“Shanti Das is a really lovely person.”
“I couldn’t say all of this without saying thanks to Shanti Das.”
Thus went anti-Scientology bigot and notorious stalker Alex Barnes-Ross’ March 23 YouTube video about an article sourced to him, published that day in The Guardian and written by Shanti Das.
But the most noteworthy of Barnes-Ross’ statements were these two admissions: “This has been in the works for about six months.” The article “took six months of ongoing work.”
Six months is the equivalent of 4,368 hours or 182 days.
Barnes-Ross thereby exploded into view the journalistic malpractice of the “lovely” Shanti Das—who, on February 6, sent the Church of Scientology a 1,785-word email enquiry with 17 points she intended to publish, along with six questions.
Her deadline? February 7.
In other words, Das provided one day for a response from the Church—to an article she, according to her source, colluded with him on for half a year—“so that we can consider it carefully before proceeding with publication.”
Six months is the equivalent of 4,368 hours or 182 days.
Masquerading as a journalist, Das wrote in her ambush email: “In the interests of fairness, accuracy and balance, we would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to these matters by 6 p.m. GMT on Friday, February 7. If we do not receive a substantive response by this time we will proceed on the basis that you do not wish to provide any comment or clarification.”
One day.
The Guardian, unsurprisingly, dodges the UK’s premier journalistic standard—the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s (IPSO) Code of Practice—to which more than 1,800 titles from over 100 publishers subscribe. But even The Guardian’s own guidelines indict Das, requiring that reporters:
- “Treat all interviewees and journalistic subjects with respect, fairness and dignity.”
- “Avoid conflicts of interest that could, or could appear to, undermine the editorial integrity or independence of the Guardian News & Media’s journalism or fall short of the sort of transparency that our readers would expect.”
- “Disclose circumstances that may appear to be conflicts and could undermine trust if exposed by others.”
- “Strive to be fair and objective in their reporting, and recognise how their natural personal biases could affect that.”
- “Should not … write about … any individual with whom they have a close personal or financial relationship.”
But according to Alex Barnes-Ross, he and the “lovely” Shanti not only have a close personal relationship, they are on the same anti-Scientology “team.”
“The Guardian [has] so far not signed up to IPSO,” wrote the UK journalism trade publication the Press Gazette. “Instead these titles have opted to regulate themselves.”
Or not, as the case may be.
IPSO frequently receives complaints on the few newspapers who spurn their high standards. Of 500 such complaints IPSO received within one year of being formed, the majority were about the “journalism” coming from The Guardian.
What “ongoing work” do you suppose Barnes-Ross, an unemployed bigot, was doing in relation to the “lovely” Shanti Das’ most recent anti-Scientology hit piece?
Are sources supposed to “work” for reporters or their publications?
And how does Das explain the imbalance of time she granted to the source of absurd, bigoted allegations and the target of those allegations, the Church itself?
“Our most important currency is trust,” The Guardian boasts. “Above all, our aim is to protect and foster the bond of trust between the organisation and its audience, and thereby to protect the integrity of the Guardian News & Media and its journalism.”
Perhaps they should inform Shanti Das.
Das’ actions made clear her only interest was in telling the false, hateful and bigoted tale she was determined to write at any cost.
And it cost her her reputation.
