There is a lot of potential material to consider, and a variety of approaches could be employed. Here, I have looked at substantive articles published in the print editions of national newspapers. I haven\u2019t included articles published solely on newspaper websites, nor newspapers\u2019 social media or multimedia output. Nor have I analysed broadcaster or social media output. There is a vast amount of other content that could, and no doubt will in due course, be considered. <\/p>\n
However, given that there is pressure for an inquiry into the press<\/a>, it is sensible to begin with the print editions, which remain a core driver of newspapers\u2019 news-gathering and commissioning processes.<\/p>\n I have looked at the number and type of articles published, and the key themes that they engaged with. I haven\u2019t conducted a close textual reading, rather categorising the overarching themes of an article. I have only considered substantive articles produced by a search using data analysis by the company LexisNexis from July 25, the day the plagiarism allegations were first reported, until August 20. Where a story was repeated in different editions of the newspapers, I disregarded duplicates, and I discounted letters to the editor, promotions or indexes, as well as passing references in articles that were primarily about something else. <\/p>\n I wanted to focus on articles that were chiefly about Arday, his work or the fallout from the events of the past month. That said, I don\u2019t disregard the impact that all of these additional pieces of output may have had on Arday \u2013 they contributed to the intense volume of content that has been created during these weeks. <\/p>\n The LexisNexis results produced a result of 553 articles from 14 publications. Cleaning the data produced a final corpus of 242 articles for consideration. The Times produced the most articles \u2013 53 in the daily edition and a further eight in the Sunday Times.<\/p>\n The data about the articles, the date of publication, the type of article, and its themes were coded by hand; the figures in this article were created using AI to visualise the data. There were two peaks in coverage: after Arday resigned from Cambridge University on August 5 and following his death on August 14.<\/p>\n The plagiarism allegations were first reported by the Daily Telegraph, The Times and the Daily Mail on July 25. The Times and the Daily Telegraph continue to report the story regularly from the last days of July, with other newspapers starting to publish around the time of Arday\u2019s resignation. In the days that followed, a significant number of articles were published. <\/p>\n Most of the articles are news stories about the developing situation. But there are also several opinion-led pieces too. The Times publishes 30 news stories and 13 opinion pieces, as well as news analysis, leaders, a review of Arday\u2019s memoir, and the only interview with the academic. <\/p>\n The coverage begins with questions about plagiarism in his academic work, but quickly moves to consider Arday\u2019s wider claims about his life, pegged to the imminent publication of his memoir. From the very beginning, some newspapers frame questions about Arday\u2019s work in the context of Cambridge\u2019s efforts to diversify its academic workforce. The Daily Telegraph\u2019s first story is headlined \u201cCambridge\u2019s diversity pin-up in plagiarism row\u201d. This sets the tone for much of the subsequent reporting.<\/p>\n From relatively early on, concerns are raised about the amount of reporting and comment the story is generating through both the press and social media. The Times journalist Giles Coren writes about Arday twice in his columns on August 1 and 11. On both occasions, he raises questions about the volume and impact of the coverage. Coren has subsequently been criticised for his choice of language \u2013 he referred to everyone \u201cslaughtering\u201d Arday \u2013 but he is clearly critical of the way the story is being covered.<\/p>\n Finally, there is the question of the proportionality of the coverage. To what extent were newspapers dealing with questions of legitimate public interest, rather than pursuing a story that had captured a degree of public enthusiasm, with consequent financial benefits to their publications? <\/p>\n While it is true that allegations of run-of-the-mill academic misconduct seem unlikely to interest journalists, it is also true that Arday was an emerging public intellectual. His media appearances \u2013 including on BBC Question Time<\/a> and guest editing Radio 4\u2019s Today<\/a> \u2013 plus the publication of a mainstream commercial memoir<\/a> featuring a range of extraordinary claims, meant he inevitably had a higher profile than his peers. <\/p>\nThe start of the coverage<\/h2>\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/290282\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n