The Guardian’s Farron Story Is Disconcertingly Poor Journalism

I’ve read any number of articles which show that The Guardian rarely understands evangelical faith, particularly Christianity, but that’s…

I’ve read any number of articles which show that The Guardian rarely understands evangelical faith, particularly Christianity, but that’s okay. At least it is still a creditable newspaper most of the time. I could easily write the article you expect from me, a Christian; I could, with attempts at even-handedness, try to show how, along with the unfair treatment of Corbyn, and the gratuitous coverage of Abbot, Farron has been treated very unreasonably — continually lambasted throughout the campaign for fairly unsurprising Christian positions that he might not hold and certainly doesn’t vote for.

That is notable, but I will comment on something else. There is an issue of the treatment of Christians, but there is another issue of empathy and the treatment of truth. My issue is not that Farron was treated poorly (he was) but that in his resignation, papers like The Guardian have carried on telling a story, but not the story. They have told the unsurprising narrive that “Tim, Nice But Christian” couldn’t cut it and that eventually something had to give. That his faith dragged him back and that so he threw in the towel. Life goes on.

But Farron does not say that it was impossible for a Christian to lead the Lib Dems. He says that it was impossible for the Lib Dems to be led by a Christian. The two are entirely different.

Read some of the speech:

“I’m liberal to my fingertips — and that liberalism means I am passionate about defending the right and liberties of people who believe very different things to me.

“There are Christians in politics who take the view that they should impose the tenets of their faith on society. But I have not taken that approach because I fundamentally disagree with it. It is not liberal, and actually, it’s counter-productive when it comes to advancing the gospel.

“Even so, I seem to have been the subject of suspicion because of what I believe and who my faith is in. In which case we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society.

“And that’s why I’ve chosen to step down as leader of the Liberal Democrats.”

Farron isn’t saying that he missed out on his Christmas holiday or that he’s tired of not being able to wear his WWJD wristband. He’s gives his reason for leaving and that is because of the constant fascination the press had with his faith — the faith-based entry test that he had to pass to be considered a true liberal. He even makes a blatant accusation that “we are kidding ourselves if we think we yet live in a tolerant, liberal society”. But The Guardian ignores it.

That quote is the genuine story. The surprise resignation of a successful party leader and the accusation that society is not liberal. Not the inevitable collapse of another believer, but a piercing snipe at the liberal and their papers who have hounded him. And maybe you disagree! That’s okay, Farron be wrong, but at least that’s what the speech is about

Why does The Guardian ignore this? Perhaps the paper thinks that this is an excuse from Farron and that it has the genuine story — of the failure of a man of faith. Perhaps it does not wish to examine its own coverage or open itself up to criticism — He’s not talking about us, is he? Worst of all perhaps the journalists didn’t notice. Somehow they were so wrapped up in their perceived version of events that they didn’t spot the implicit criticism, even as they quoted the speech.

I am genuinely baffled. How can they not have taken the time to understand a story before covering it? Even if it is all Farron’s fault, is not the article’s subject afforded some ability to speak and be understood? So many articles are like this now, giving their own take on events before the reader has had chance to figure out what has taken place. Maybe we should all stop seeking news and embrace the tide of endless editorials. Certainly I’m happy to write a few.

There was a third story in all this, one of tragedy and triumph, of a man giving up something he loved for something he loved more. That too would have been worth covering, had they taken the time to understand it.

“I want to say one more thing. I joined our party when I was 16 years of age. It’s in my blood — I love our history, our people, our values, I love my party.

‘Imagine how proud I am to lead my party — and then imagine what would lead me to voluntarily relinquish that honour. In the words of Isaac Watts: “It would have to be something so amazing, so divine, it demands my heart, my life, my all.”

Republished from an earlier blog.