Why We Support Carole Cadwalladr (Even If We Don't Agree With Everything She Said)
This morning we said that "CoCs often end up covering up and hiding the issue" ("or obscuring the issue", as an associate put it). After we had published that someone said we could maybe also include a sentence or two about the "message of Carole Cadwalladr", summarising her situation because "people don't return once they click away".
I first became aware of Cadwalladr's work a long time ago. I didn't like Cadwalladr because she kept throwing baseless accusations at Julian Assange, trying to link him to people or interests he was clearly not connected to, either in The Guardian or in her Twitter threads (the latter were of vastly lower quality and seemed like arbitrary gossip). She'd basically put together photographs and made a story about what she believed these photographs meant, or how they could collectively be put together to come up with a "conspiracy" story/narrative, especially in relation to Cambridge Analytica and Brexit. She'd do so repeatedly. I responded to that at the time.
That was so long ago that it is forgotten and mostly forgiven. Let bygones be bygones.
Cadwalladr would more or less "go under the radar" for years to come. Then, recalling the stuff from years earlier (like those photographs), she said things that got her in trouble and got her sued (as a person). This brought Cadwalladr more 'fame' (in the media), but it wasn't without a cost or a liability. Cadwalladr managed to upset some rich people and powerful interests.
What Cadwalladr said about Assange (and Wikileaks) no longer matters much. It's not in Wikipedia, either. It was a very long time ago and she attracted a number of avid fans (one even composed a song about her). That was also in the era of "peak Twitter" - perhaps around 2017 when Trump blocked me for criticising him (reaching an audience of millions).
What Cadwalladr went through these past 3 years highlights a serious issue in the British legal system. It's an issue we intend to address in years to come based on our own experience. We also have lots of documents related to that.
It is widely recognised by media regulators and even "Lords" that the future of British journalism is at stake. The "chilling effect" chills journalism (self-censorship or censorship after publication, due to fear/threats).
No amount of censorship ever benefited democracy. The way censorship works is, people first justify the censorship of really horrible things and then - over time - justify doing he same to less objectionable things. Right now the US government takes troves of data obtained by mass surveillance to retaliate against critics, even taking away nationality of citizens (for merely saying something) or telling US citizens to "self-deport". Retroactive retaliation is really nefarious.
The First Amendment (US) - like many other American things - was partly a reaction to imperial/Royal/Crown overreach. We need to prioritise truth, not privilege. █