View all newsletters
Sign up for our free email newsletters

Fighting for quality news media in the digital age.

  1. News
June 21, 2022updated 30 Sep 2022 11:27am

Times subscribers revolt over Carrie story spiked for ‘legal reasons’

By Bron Maher

Readers are complaining en masse in The Times’ subscribers-only comment section after revelations the paper spiked an unflattering story about Boris and Carrie Johnson after its initial publication.

Comments criticising The Times on its own articles have received hundreds of up votes from other subscribers.

On Saturday The Times removed an article from later editions that claimed Boris Johnson had attempted to get his then-mistress (now wife) Carrie Symonds installed as chief of staff when he was foreign secretary.

Why did The Times pull the Carrie Johnson story?

Times publisher News UK has declined to give more information on why the story was spiked, but Press Gazette understands the decision was taken due to legal reasons and the New York Times said an official had attributed it to “legal issues” without giving any specifics.

Downing Street admitted on Monday to contacting the paper about the article after publication.

Only Times subscribers are able to see or contribute to its website comment section. Amid the publication’s silence, Times subscribers are seeking answers.

For example one article, “​​Boris Johnson back at No 10 after minor sinus operation”, had over 1,000 comments as of Tuesday morning.

Content from our partners
<a></a>Key ways to futureproof your media career as journalism job cuts bite deep
Slow online ads cost UK publishers £50m a year: Here's how to fix them
Mather Economics and InsurAds combine to help publishers boost revenue

In the top comment, a subscriber asked: “On a more important subject does any reader know why the Times bowed to No 10 pressure and pulled the story which alleged that Mr Johnson had attempted to install Carrie in a £100,00-a-year job in the foreign office at a time when he was conducting a secret affair with her?”

Times Carrie comments

Picture: Times screenshot

The comment had received almost 600 favourites at time of writing. At least three commentors on the article declared they would be cancelling their subscriptions to the paper.

A second comment, with nearly 400 up votes, said: “Not a peep from this newspaper, or Dominic Raab, or the Free Speech Union or the other right wing client journalists about how the government effectively dictates what a supposed free press can or cannot publish. This is incredible.”

Another article, “Boris Johnson could get three ethics advisers instead of just one”, had over 100 comments less than 12 hours after publication.

One top comment with nearly 100 favourites asked: “Yes, but what about the ethics of The Times printing a story about Johnson trying to give a job to his then partner, then pulling it after a call from No. 10?”

Times Carrie

Picture: Times screenshot

Another said: “Carrie might be up for it, but it’s unlikely we’d read about that in The Times.”

Times Carrie

Picture: Times screenshot

But some subscribers were more sympathetic to the paper’s position.

Mark F said: “How about there was not any evidence of it actually happening, and quite rightly the Times decided not to risk a court case. I have no idea whether it is true, do you?”

Mail Online published a follow-up to The Times’ original Saturday story about Carrie and Boris Johnson, but also pulled the story later that day.

Picture: Reuters/Hannah McKay/Pool

Topics in this article : ,

Email to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our "Letters Page" blog

Select and enter your email address Weekly insight into the big strategic issues affecting the future of the news industry. Essential reading for media leaders every Thursday. Your morning brew of news about the world of news from Press Gazette and elsewhere in the media. Sent at around 10am UK time. Our weekly does of strategic insight about the future of news media aimed at US readers. A fortnightly update from the front-line of news and advertising. Aimed at marketers and those involved in the advertising industry.
  • Business owner/co-owner
  • CEO
  • COO
  • CFO
  • CTO
  • Chairperson
  • Non-Exec Director
  • Other C-Suite
  • Managing Director
  • President/Partner
  • Senior Executive/SVP or Corporate VP or equivalent
  • Director or equivalent
  • Group or Senior Manager
  • Head of Department/Function
  • Manager
  • Non-manager
  • Retired
  • Other
Visit our privacy Policy for more information about our services, how Progressive Media Investments may use, process and share your personal data, including information on your rights in respect of your personal data and how you can unsubscribe from future marketing communications.
Thank you

Thanks for subscribing.

Websites in our network