This post is based on the content of a Twitter thread by Dr Evan Harris, available here, reproduced with permission and thanks.Whilst The Sun’s “confidential source” Rebecca Vardy may have lost the Wagatha Christie case, the “newspaper” (a generous description) itself took one hell of a kicking in the judgement.The Sun knew that it, and its journalistic standards, suffered withering criticism by the fact that, in 1000s of words of coverage, Murdoch’s rag fails to mention The Sun even once! This is all despite being named by the judge over 125 times in 290 paragraphs.Although the case is centralised around the allegation of Vardy (via her agent) selling stories to The Sun, The Sun reported that the “stories were leaked” to “the press” or to “the media”.This is convenient wording considering the fact that the term “the press” is used a total of 25 times throughout the judgement – one fifth as often as the Sun is referenced – and the majority of these are general references. There are only 5 general mentions of “the media”. In comparison, there were 125 mentions of “The Sun” but, again, none in The Sun’s court report.Through a combination of distortion, low cunning and complete shamelessness the Sun has achieved a real feat of misleading court reporting.At the start of the judgement (§4), the Judge set out the specific meaning that Coleen Rooney must show is true. It includes the Sun. Strangely, this is not mentioned in the Sun’s pages of coverage.A key part of the case progression was Vardy’s attempts to bring Sun journalists to court in order to state that she was not the source (§§22-24). Her attempts failed and backfired as the Judge drew inferences from the “no comment” positions adopted by most, compared to a flat denial. The Sun was the only newspaper not to mention their own starring role in the case, including the position of its journalists as to denying or “neither confirm or deny” that Vardy (or her agent) was the source.The Sun’s journalists mainly decided that they would not assist the Court in answering the main question, relying on their right not to divulge a confidential source (although some may argue that source protection should not extend to cheap private gossip… Watergate this is not). Of course, News International (NI) had no such sanctimony when 10 years ago – facing criminal investigation for corrupt payments to public servants – it sold out The Sun’s paid police sources. The sources went to jail, the junior staff went on trial and New International executives received large bonuses.At §93 of the Judgement, Coleen Rooney is cited as exposing how some celebrity journalism works – essentially how it acts as a con to the readers. The Sun chose not to cover this. Nor did the Mail or the Mirror.In the following paragraph (§94), Vardy admits to one of these secret set-ups. Note how the Sun misleads its readers by saying ‘Rebekah Vardy is spotted leaving hospital’ and also how the paparazzi and the celebrity split the payment. Everyone wins, except the readers who are taken for fools.At §117, §123 and §177 (Coleen Rooney’s first, second and third warning to the unknown leaker), the Sun is mentioned yet again, labelled as a “rag of paper,” a “HORRIBLE newspaper” and a “scum of a paper”. Unfathomably, the Sun has never – in the reams of reporting of Wagatha Christie – referred to the contents of either of these warnings. Why so reticent?

• §146-157 of the judgement shows how a pap agency, Mrs Vardy and the Sun conspired to snatch a group photo of the “WAGs” at the 2018 World Cup in Russia. The FA did not want this as it distracted the team. The Sun claimed to support the team but in fact did not care. Hypocrites.

At §175, the Judge cites an email from the Rooney’s chief advisor, Paul Stretford, to a junior member of the PR team, which describes the Sun in suitable terms. Never mentioned in The Sun’s reports (nor in those of any of its supposed rivals, who swim in a similar swamp).At §§178-9, the Judge addresses how The Sun essentially made up details of a story, stating that “it is more probably that the additional information was guesswork” and that there were aspects of “speculation”. This point is reiterated at §278, stating that a quotation may have been “concocted by journalists”. The Sun normally denies making stuff up and claims to have a source (always confidential, conveniently enough), however they do not even try to defend themselves here, having been duped by Rooney.The Judge’s verdict mentions The Sun prominently, twice. But, by some accident of sub-editing, this key section never makes it into The Sun’s coverage. The newspaper is a parody. But a vicious and pernicious parody.Final thoughts. 1) Rebecca Vardy (and Caroline Watt) should be left alone. 2) The Sun deserves no such sympathy. 3) The Judgement shows how noble and smart Coleen Rooney has been. And why Scousers never buy The Sun.