On 14 August, the 41-year-old academic Jason Arday was found dead in Battersea, London. His death followed a relentless media blitz in which the previously unknown professor was subjected the sort of relentless coverage which is usually reserved for heads of state. Since then, the media outlets involved have been deleting the evidence:
"Jason Arday may want to get himself a nice pair of orange trousers"
Looks like this (incomplete) archived copy is all that remains of a Times article that was published yesterday, before being swiftly deleted. https://t.co/Yy1TjNygWM pic.twitter.com/tErOj7OItx
— Plutôt la Barbie (@plutotlabarbie) August 15, 2026
Jason Arday — Gone
As we reported, the witch hunt into Arday was spearheaded by a known eugenicist and “race realist”. This should have given journalists pause; it didn’t because many of them implicitly share the same beliefs.
The Times deleting an entire story is at the extreme end of the response. In that instance, the decision to delete was potentially down to the fact that Arday was declared dead the same day. Regardless of the circumstances, however, it does demonstrate that these organisations weren’t proud of their output. And there was an awful lot of said output too, as Mukhtar reported:
Some of the articles that The Telegraph alone published about Jason Arday.
It was way over the top. pic.twitter.com/xjfRKhDOAI
— Mukhtar (@I_amMukhtar) August 15, 2026
Mukhtar also tracked the following:
The Times and The Sunday Times published about 44 articles about Professor Jason Arday.
The Telegraph published 43.
The Daily Mail published about 38.
The Independent published 24.
The Spectator published around 21.
The Guardian published about 19.
The Daily Express published more than 10.
The Sun published 9.
It was a disproportionate media pile-on.
Regardless of any actual public interest, the breadth of coverage into this little-known academic was clearly overkill. There are heads of state who receive less scrutiny than what Arday endured. And it didn’t take a genius to see this could all go wrong.
Disturbingly, the Times actually used Arday as part of an ongoing ad campaign:
Did @thetimes ever put an ad budget behind a story about British royal family member Prince Andrew Windsor fucking babies on Epstein Island? Did they spend money to boost a story about Peter Mandelson , Epstein's British bestie, and chase you around Twitter with it for days?… pic.twitter.com/8GUMBoPzSi
— David Hundeyin (@DavidHundeyin) August 15, 2026
The Sun has kept up its articles while deleting the posts linking to them:
Did The Sun delete all their previous posts on X about Jason Arday?
I can see articles on their website. https://t.co/Zl7aMkP92V
— TCH (@20_Houses) August 14, 2026
Individual journalists have also deleted their posts relating to Arday:
Why did you delete all your tweets and Substacks about Jason Arday
— Owen Jones (@owenjonesjourno) August 15, 2026
Allison Pearson has deleted her tweets. As well. Truly vile individuals. https://t.co/HpvdtAM4En
— Lucy McGhee (@Luluphooey69) August 15, 2026
Writer Nels Abbey, meanwhile, exposed how callous and desperate media organisations have been:
— Nels Abbey (@nelsabbey) August 15, 2026
Change
In response to Arday’s death, the Good Law project called for an inquiry:
Dr Arday’s tragic death was the direct, foreseeable result of press harrassment with racism playing a key role.
We're asking the prime minister to commission a public inquiry so a tragic death like Dr Arday's doesn't happen again.https://t.co/fGZZTjUYZG pic.twitter.com/pCzBVye4nE
— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) August 15, 2026
Should such an inquiry take place, we already know what the outcome will be. Our media is owned by a handful of wealthy elites, and everything these outlets publish is designed to distract from that fact. Racism, classism, scandal – all great things to distract from the real reason why your life keeps getting worse.
RIP Jason Arday.
Featured image via the Times
By Willem Moore
