Birdwatch Archive

Birdwatch Note

2023-12-16 01:47:49 UTC - MISINFORMED_OR_POTENTIALLY_MISLEADING

Mr Justice Fancourt adjudged that “the majority of his [Lee Harpin’s] payments from MGN from 2003- 2005 are likely to have been in respect of UIG [unlawful information gathering]” in the Mirror Group phone hacking trial. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Duke-of-Sussex-v-MGN-Judgment.pdf, pg. 67

Written by 9D0668A79F13FB31023E2CC912ED20AC06DF6F3A9F6354F997FF84CA05F62299
Participant Details

Original Tweet

Tweet embedding is no longer reliably available, due to the platform's instability (in terms of both technology and policy). If the Tweet still exists, you can view it here: https://twitter.com/foo_bar/status/1735783562308395041

Please note, though, that you may need to have your own Twitter account to access that page. I am currently exploring options for archiving Tweet data in a post-API context.

All Information

  • ID - 1735839113440305458
  • noteId - 1735839113440305458
  • participantId -
  • noteAuthorParticipantId - 9D0668A79F13FB31023E2CC912ED20AC06DF6F3A9F6354F997FF84CA05F62299 Participant Details
  • createdAtMillis - 1702691269636
  • tweetId - 1735783562308395041
  • 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
    • Mr Justice Fancourt adjudged that “the majority of his [Lee Harpin’s] payments from MGN from 2003- 2005 are likely to have been in respect of UIG [unlawful information gathering]” in the Mirror Group phone hacking trial. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Duke-of-Sussex-v-MGN-Judgment.pdf, pg. 67

Note Status History

createdAt timestampMillisOfFirstNonNMRStatus firstNonNMRStatus timestampMillisOfCurrentStatus currentStatus timestampMillisOfLatestNonNMRStatus mostRecentNonNMRStatus participantId
2023-12-16 01:47:49 UTC
(1702691269636)
1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)
2023-12-17 02:05:57 UTC
(1702778757358)
NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS 1969-12-31 23:59:59 UTC
(-1)

Note Ratings

rated at rated by
2023-12-16 10:09:20 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 08:25:09 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 07:47:31 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 06:28:42 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 05:50:15 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 04:46:01 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 04:37:54 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 02:48:09 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 02:46:51 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 02:33:26 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 02:09:53 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 00:22:25 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-16 22:18:07 -0600 Rating Details
2023-12-23 09:14:12 -0600 Rating Details