THE BRITISH PRESS AND THE WEB

Confusing Wikipedia for research and Internet gossips as a genuine source, the British ‘papers are very good at reporting what they THINK is news, not necessarily what IS news. Here is their deeply concerning reliance on unsubstantiated social media tittle-tattle and online encyclopedias by the mainstream press that has fuelled many of the groundless myths about Peter Wyngarde.

On January 19th, 2018, when news of Peter’s passing was announced to the public, The Mirror tasked journalists Steve Myall and Robin Turner to pen an article about his life.

‘How Peter Wyngarde’s secret sex life was exposed by police, destroying career of the 1970s pin up who inspired Austin Powers’

…and so the fairy tale began.

N.B. All errors have been highlighted and their original sources identified:

‘Peter Wyngarde was one of the biggest names in TV in the mid 1970s but he hid his homosexuality and when it was exposed it signalled the end of his career.

Correction: Messer and Turner fail to present any proof of this alleged “homosexuality”; there are no citations from individuals who were close to Peter, nor are there any excerpts from his interviews that affirm he was gay. Absolutely nothing! Thus, it appears that their audience was simply expected to accept their assertions without question. Peter’s career did not end post 1975. See the following for all the work he did from that date onwards: Films Radio Plays Television Roles Theatre Performances

Jason King with his ’70s sideburns, bouffant hair and bushy moustache was the only TV detective who sipped vintage port while catching villains.

Often dressed in a head- turning silk suit and cravat he would down large portions of alcohol at the wheel of a posh Bentley as he chased the bad guys. Small wonder then that Mike Myers based his hugely successful spoof spy Austen (sic) Powers on the moustached sleuth who could seduce continental beauties at the drop of his felt hat.

Corrections: Jason King was never known to wear “silk suits” or, indeed, a “felt hat!”

King was played by flamboyant Peter Wyngarde and the portrayal won him legions of female fans – he even had his own women’s fashion column. For three years while show was on air he was one of the biggest stars on the planet and in Australia was mobbed when he visited. When he arrived in Sydney Airport in 1971 he was met by an excited crowd of 35,000 fans. He was crushed when they rushed forward and spent three days in a hospital after suffering concussion.

Correction: Peter never, EVER had his own “women’s fashion column”.

In the show Department S his Jason King character often got the girl and as she is about to kiss him, he manages to avoid it . It was a clue perhaps to the secret he hid from his fans.

Correction: This statement was cut and pasted directly from Wikipedia without any attempt to disguise it. As can be seen from the screenshots below, Peter is evidently not “avoiding kissing” any of these women.

In 1975, he was arrested, convicted and fined £75 for an act of “gross indecency” in the toilets of Gloucester Bus Station*, which followed an arrest and caution for similar activities in the toilets at Kennedy Gardens in Birmingham the previous year. (*This ‘conviction’ was quashed by the Home Office in July 2023 – see later in this article).

Correction: This account is entirely fabricated and first appeared on Wikipedia in 2010 (see ‘Wikipedia: ToTheHeartOfIt‘). The contributor cited Stephen Richards’ 2003 publication, ‘Crime Through Time: The Black Museum’ (Mirage Publishing – ISBN: 1902578171), as the source; however, the book contains no reference to this incident whatsoever. While Wikipedia editors initially removed the entry from Peter Wyngarde’s biography, it resurfaced following the publication of this very article after Peter passed away in 2018. Because the committee overseeing the biography consider the British tabloid press to be an irrefutable source, they reuploaded it on publication of this Myall-Turner article. This arrogant conglomerate has consistently declined to acknowledge the damage this misinformation has caused to Peter Wyngarde’s reputation. This situation underscores a concerning and increasing mutual reliance between the British press and Wikipedia.

After the first incident, Wyngarde was interviewed for the News of the World and the Birmingham-based Sunday Mercury, and asserted that the arrest was due to a misunderstanding; in his defence after the second incident he claimed he had suffered a “mental aberration”. But it was too late. He was dropped from mainstream acting roles and his career was virtually over. He said his career was ruined by ‘small minded people’ following his 1975 arrest. It was less than 10 years since the government decriminalised homosexual acts in private between two men and there was still a stigma attached to same sex relationships.

Corrections: Again, taken directly from Wikipedia. Peter was NEVER interviewed by The News of the World, and so never “claimed” anything. Peter was NOT dropped from “mainstream acting roles”. In 1976, he played Shylock in a hugely successful British tour of ‘The Merchant of Venice’ and was back in the West End of London playing Prince Bounine in ‘Anastasia‘ at the Cambridge Theatre. He would also appear at the prestigious English Theatre, Vienna during the same year, in ‘Dear Liar‘, returning in 1977, starring in his own production of ‘The Merchant of Venice‘. He would also direct and star in the European premier of Patrick White’s (Nobel Laureate) ‘Big Toys‘. In 1979, he was cast as General Klytus in Dino De Laurentiis’s Sci-Fi blockbuster, ‘Flash Gordon‘, which is now considered a classic of its genre. He also gave memorable performances in ‘Doctor Who‘, ‘Sherlock Holmes‘, ‘Bulman‘, ‘Crown Court‘ and ‘The Hammer House of Mystery and Suspense‘ series.

It was not until 2007 that claims emerged Wyngarde had a relationship with fellow actor Alan Bates during the ten years he had lived with him in the Sixties. Beneath the public face of pin up heart throb he was gay but because of public prejudices, reinforced by newspapers, it was kept secret.

Correction: Excerpted from Donald Spoto’s biography, Otherwise Engaged: The Life of Alan Bates (Cornerstone – ISBN: 9780091797355). Peter merely shared a residence with Bates, a common practice among young actors both then and now (refer to the original tenancy agreement signed by Peter on November 24, 1958). While Spoto claimed they moved into the apartment in 1956, the lease actually commenced in November 1958. Furthermore, Bates spent two years in the early sixties residing with Rock Hudson in the United States and eventually vacated the property in 1965. Consequently, the alleged “ten years” was actually closer to five. Until his passing in 2018, Peter strongly disputed Spoto’s assertions, stating: “Alan and I shared a flat and a cottage in Kent for over six years. We were both original members of the Royal Court. He lived in a Victorian flat in Battersea with the likes of Peter O’Toole and Brian Bedford, who is now the resident director at the Stratford-Upon-Avon company in Toronto, Canada. We were both looking for a flat, so I suggested we share one to reduce costs. I was filming The Salt Land at Pinewood, a television production by Peter Shaffer, whose father owned the Terrace and suggested the Garden Flat was available. We agreed immediately. The rental of the cottage came first, as did the expense of staying in hotels in London when either of us were working; therefore, the flat was a blessing. In practice, when I was working in the West End, I would have the flat, or vice versa if he was working. If we were both working simultaneously, there was a divan bed in what is now the kitchen, making it a perfect arrangement.” Peter’s handwritten account of these events can be viewed here. Regarding the claim, “Beneath the public face of pin-up heart throb he was gay?” — this is complete supposition.

Although well-known in showbiz circles by the nickname Petunia Winegum  it fell to the police – who enforced decency laws which targeted the homosexual community – to out him. Following his public exposure in 1975 bit parts followed for Wyngarde – notably as masked character Klytus in the 1980 film Flash Gordon but he did not reach the heights of his previous fame.

Correction: Yet another claim by Donald Spoto that appeared on Wikipedia. In fact, the “nickname Petunia Winegum” was coined by actor Roy Kinnear in 1966 while shooting an episode of The Avengers with Diana Rigg – the latter of whom confirmed this in a later interview. It was latterly used in a sketch by ‘The Two Ronnies’ in 1970. It was NOT well-known known in acting circles. See earlier entry re. Peter’s work post 1975.

In later interviews he talked of how he battled alcoholism telling an interviewer in 1993: “I drank myself to a standstill … I am amazed I am still here”.

Correction: The above was cut and pasted directly from Wikipedia. Peter NEVER battled “alcoholism” and there is no proof whatsoever to substantiate this claim.

Latterly, Wyngarde’s public appearances were mainly restricted to nostalgic events commemorating television programmes where he had a cult following.

He died this week at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital aged 90.’

_______________________________

Shortly after the publication of this disgraceful article, a formal complaint letter was dispatched to Messrs Myall and Turner through the editor of The Mirror. However, neither of the journalists nor the editor showed the courtesy to respond or rectify the significant misinformation present in the article. Several months later, another effort was made to have the article retracted, but we were merely to received the following response from Kate Archer of the paper’s Complaints Department:

Above: Couldn’t even get my name right!

As previously noted, formal letters of complaint were submitted within the stipulated 12-month period; however, these were disregarded. Such a response is characteristic of the British press, which tends to damage the reputation of individuals unable to defend themselves and subsequently refuses to provide corrections when such errors are identified.

Following the initial publication of this editorial in the print version of The Mirror and on its digital platform, an attempt was made to moderate the headline in the latter as follows…

Above: Not a single shred of evidence was provided to back up this claim

Yet, what became “shameful” in the headline, they stubbornly refused to correct, modify, or remove the identified inaccuracies and falsehoods contained in the body of the article itself, despite the fact that it has been pointed out to them on multiple occasions.

In light of a legislative change by the British government, and following my application in April 2023, the Home Office consented to posthumously annul the long-contested 1975 conviction against Peter, this was pointed out to the editor of the ‘paper.

‘The article did not include inaccurate or misleading information about you* when it was published or since the last update (if any).’ (*They clearly hadn’t bothered to read who the email was from, as they evidently believed that they were replying to Peter, who had past away in 2018!).

Really?! As anyone can see from the breakdown earlier in this piece, there’s barely a line in this article that ISN’T inaccurate!!! It goes on…

‘The article reports facts discussed in court. In particular, in line with IPSO standards, journalists are allowed to go to court and report anything which is said or given as evidence in court.’

There is nothing in the article that refers to a court! The waffle continues…

‘According to regulatory guidance, the exemption is “specifically designed to protect freedom of expression” in the interest in light of “the vital importance of a free and independent media”.

In The Mirror’s view, clearly, a “…free and independent media” mean “free” to lie through their teeth?

“Furthermore, we understand that the article is also compliant with the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) Editor’s Code of Practice.“

It appears that this ‘Code of Practice’ requires editors to entirely disregard letters and emails that express legitimate concerns about their employees, specifically journalists, who appear to just make things up as they go along.

The motto of journalists used to be that if one seeks the truth, they should consult the source. Nowadays, that source is Wikipedia!

Why are British tabloids and the journalists that employ them so vindictive and nasty?

There are a number of reasons that tabloid journalists and publications frequently employ aggressive, sensational, and critical tones, driven by economic incentives, historical press traditions, and a significant public demand for dramatic conflict.

One of the primary drivers of tabloid aggression is the commercial Incentives: Scandal, outrage and provocative headlines generate higher print circulation and digital engagement. As neutral or purely positive reporting rarely achieves equivalent traction, sensationalism has become a central business model.

Another reason is competitiveness between journalists themselves, A personality-driven press, intense rivalry among national publications and individual journalist compels newsrooms to adopt more polarising perspectives on celebrities, royalty, and other public figures to outperform competitors.

The erosion of boundaries between news and opinion is compelling tabloids journalists to obscure the distinction between objective reporting and subjective commentary, presenting loaded language or personal critiques as standard news items. The tabloid press have a long history of using intrusive tactics, leading to journalists and the ‘papers they work for overstepping the mark, such as the phone-hacking scandals and aggressive doorstep reporting. Such practices have become normalised. Limited regulatory constraints have more or less given publishers a free hand to treat their victims however they please. Print journalism in the UK, operates under less stringent legal or self-regulatory frameworks than broadcast media, granting greater latitude for sensationalism and intrusion. That said, legal accountability has increased following high-profile litigation.

Public voyeurism also plays a part in how the tabloids operate: Media coverage both reflects and stimulates a long-standing public fascination with the private lives, failures, and downfalls of high-profile individuals. However, the public are beginning to notice the difference between genuine reporting and a journalist simply being cruel or spiteful. A recent poll conducted by Reader’s Digest indicated that over 80% of the population believe British tabloids are becoming increasingly hostile and aggressive.

Click below for more press nonsense…