MartianNight
No bio...
User ID: 1244
They're already doing it:
The campaign of misinformation was too much for Jason
This is completely false. There is no evidence that “misinformation” contributed to Arday's death. The accusations of misconduct that lead to Arday's firing were true: he plagiarized his PhD thesis, the book he supposedly authored wasn't published at all, and in addition to that he made many extraordinary claims that were not corroborated by any evidence, while defying any logic, like his claim to run 6 marathons in a week and donating 5 million pounds to charity.
So what “misinformation” existed about Arday? It seems to me that the criticism he faced was based on true facts and reasonable doubts. To frame this as a “campaign of misinformation” is absolutely diabolical. Ironically, Ardays family are the ones spreading misinformation (it runs in the family I guess) when they claim that disinformation campaigns caused his downfall, and the BBC are accomplices when they copy these quotes uncritically and without commentary.
I'm not going to bother to take down the article sentence-by-sentence but it seems full of the usual bullshit that aims to disinform the reader in every way. But take for example:
self-defined "race realist" Nathan Cofnas, who was sacked from his Cambridge role in 2024
Interesting how important it is to the BBC to discredit the person who correctly called out a habitual liar as a “race realist” who was “sacked”. If Cofnas was wrong about Arday, why not mention that? And if he was right, why does it matter why he was sacked? Of course, the entire point is to convince the reader that Cofnas was a bad bad person who should not be believed, while denying the fact that he was actually correct when he accused Arday of plagiarism.
Compare this with:
The book tells the story of [Arday's] life from being non-verbal until the age of 11 and unable to read or write until 18
Given that we now know Arday was a habitual liar, and there are no other sources to back up these claims, why should we assume these claims were actually true? Why doesn't the BBC provide any caveats here, like they did for Cofnas? Of course the answer is that the BBC is fine with misinformation when they're the ones spreading it as part of their progressive propaganda campaign.
To make a long story short, for me this article is nothing but a reminder that I still don't hate journalists enough.
Ghent is a pretty low-ranked university, not even breaking the top 100 in most rankings. It's not even the top university in Belgium. They clearly thought they got a good deal by giving a job to a disgraced postdoc from a top 10 university like Cambridge. (Especially since Cofnas received his doctorate from Oxford, too.)
For Cofnas, Ghent was a huge step back obviously, and I imagine he already felt like his academic career was over, so I don't know if he'll be losing sleep over this. Not sure what he's going to do next; usually the trajectory for this type of person is to join a right wing think tank or something.
More options
Context Copy link