Telegraph’s “Spoiler” Tactic Raises Concerns Over Reform UK’s Influence on Journalism

The Telegraph published details of two £36 million donations to Reform UK from crypto entrepreneurs Ben Delo and Christopher Harborne shortly after the party was approached for comment by the Sunday Times. The timing allowed Reform to pre-empt a potentially damaging story by placing it in a newspaper perceived as sympathetic. A Telegraph journalist described “significant unease” in the newsroom about the practice, noting that the outlet’s staff were not aware the party had been contacted by another publication. The paper also ran favorable interviews with Nigel Farage and Harborne after the Guardian’s earlier report of a £5 million gift to Farage from Harborne.

The Guardian

Reform UK has previously used the Telegraph to “spoil” stories that originated elsewhere. In April, the Guardian revealed the £5 million gift to Farage; Reform then briefed the Telegraph, which published flattering pieces on Farage and Harborne. Earlier, the Guardian’s investigation of donations and loans to Reform deputy leader Richard Tice and his company appeared first in a Telegraph story. The party’s partner, Isabel Oakeshott, writes a regular column for the Telegraph, further intertwining the two organisations.

The Guardian

Both the Telegraph Media Group and Reform UK were contacted for comment but did not respond at the time of reporting. The incident has revived debate over the Telegraph’s historic ties to the Conservative Party and its current ownership by Axel Springer, with some staff noting a shift toward more challenging coverage of Reform.

The Guardian

• “It’s utterly destructive behaviour with a new twist – the importance of the campaign finance story, Reform UK as a Trumpist playbook party and corrosive of trust,” — Lionel Barber, a former Financial Times editor

The Guardian

• “I have been victim myself at the FT of this behaviour. But in the end, the good guys win.” — David Banks, a media law consultant

The Guardian

• “The danger is that it will make newspapers less willing to extend a larger window of opportunity [to respond to journalistic inquiries],” — David Banks, a media law consultant

The Guardian