Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-05-20 14:52:48 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

Ms Cadwalladr initially claimed that what she had said about Mr Banks, which he said was defamation, was true. It was later proved untrue, which she has admitted but then claimed it was "in the public interest" to have said it anyway. The appeal court disagreed. https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/arron-banks-wins-carole-cadwalladr-libel-appeal/ https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf

Written by DCA4F048ED1DEBA07E0B623C8525FA2C5F6A1064CFED103165C08B8CF5842F77
Participant Details

All Information

• ID - 1659935207456112640
• noteId - 1659935207456112640
• participantId -
• noteAuthorParticipantId - DCA4F048ED1DEBA07E0B623C8525FA2C5F6A1064CFED103165C08B8CF5842F77 Participant Details
• createdAtMillis - 1684594368220
• tweetId - 1659193784649875458
• classification - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING
• believable -
• harmful -
• validationDifficulty -
• misleadingOther - 0
• misleadingFactualError - 0
• misleadingManipulatedMedia - 0
• misleadingOutdatedInformation - 0
• misleadingMissingImportantContext - 1
• misleadingUnverifiedClaimAsFact - 0
• misleadingSatire - 0
• notMisleadingOther - 0
• notMisleadingFactuallyCorrect - 0
• notMisleadingOutdatedButNotWhenWritten - 0
• notMisleadingClearlySatire - 0
• notMisleadingPersonalOpinion - 0
• trustworthySources - 1
• summary
• Ms Cadwalladr initially claimed that what she had said about Mr Banks, which he said was defamation, was true. It was later proved untrue, which she has admitted but then claimed it was "in the public interest" to have said it anyway. The appeal court disagreed. https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/arron-banks-wins-carole-cadwalladr-libel-appeal/ https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Banks-v-Cadwalladr-130622-Judgment.pdf