As a journalist, her work in the second decade of the 21st century has focused on issues related to technology. For example, she has interviewedJimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia.[10]
Starting in late 2016,The Observer published an extensive series of articles by Cadwalladr on what she termed the "right-wing fake news ecosystem".[11]
Anthony Barnett wrote in the blog ofThe New York Review of Books about Cadwalladr's articles inThe Observer, which reported malpractice by campaigners forBrexit, and the illicit funding ofVote Leave, in the2016 EU membership referendum. She has also reported on alleged links betweenNigel Farage, the2016 presidential campaign ofDonald Trump, and Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election that has been investigated in the United States.[11] Regarding the Trump presidential campaign allegation, although the full report remains unpublished, theMueller investigation "identified numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign".[12] BeforeCambridge Analytica closed operations in 2018, the company took legal action againstThe Observer for the claims made in Cadwalladr's articles.[13]
In April 2019, Cadwalladr gave a 15-minuteTED talk about the links between Facebook and Brexit, titled "Facebook's role in Brexit — and the threat to democracy".[14] It was one of the opening talks ofTED's 2019 conference and Cadwalladr called out the 'Gods of Silicon Valley –Mark Zuckerberg,Sheryl Sandberg,Sergey Brin,Larry Page andJack Dorsey' by name. She accusedFacebook of "breaking" democracy, a moment described as a 'truth bomb'.[15] TED's curatorChris Anderson invitedMark Zuckerberg to come and give his response, an offer he declined. Anderson later listed the talk as one of the best ones of 2019.[16] According to Cadwalladr, the founders of Facebook and Google were sponsoring the conference and the co-founder of Twitter was speaking at it.[17] She summarised her speech in an article inThe Observer: "As things stood, I didn't think it was possible to have free and fair elections ever again. That liberal democracy was broken. And they had broken it." The speech was applauded.[18][19] Some of the "tech giants" criticised the talk for "factual inaccuracies", but when invited to specify them, they did not respond.[17][19]
Arron Banks initiated alibel action against Cadwalladr on 12 July 2019.
Banks had objected to her claim, notably in her TED talk,[22] that he had lied about "his relationship with the Russian government".[23] According toThe Guardian, "Banks's lawyers argued this meant there were strong grounds to believe he would assist the interests of the Russian government, against those of the British government, in exchange for that money." Cadwalladr's lawyers had argued this meant there were reasonable grounds to investigate. However, the judge concluded that, in context, the TED talk and the related tweet meant that "on more than one occasion Mr Banks told untruths about a secret relationship he had with the Russian government in relation to acceptance of foreign funding of electoral campaigns in breach of the law on such funding".[24] The judge had earlier cautioned that "broadcasts and public speeches should not be interpreted as though they were formal written texts",[25] and "emphasised that the ordinary reader or listener would not minutely analyse possible interpretations of words like a libel lawyer".[24] Cadwalladr said of the judge's "meaning" that she had never said the words and not claimed in any article that Banks had accepted funding: "These are not words I have ever said. On the contrary, I've always been very clear that there is no evidence that Banks accepted Russian funding".[26] She described the experience of having to defend the meaning of words she'd never said, as "kafkaesque".[27]
Press Gazette, the UK journalism industry paper, said: "That she had to face this battle alone for four years reflects poorly on the two publishers involved in the case: Guardian News and Media and TED, a non-profit organisation in the US that is dedicated to the spread of ideas".[27]
In aHigh Court ruling on 13 June 2022, Banks' case was dismissed: the judge concluded that Cadwalladr had a reasonable belief that her comments were in the public interest.[28] Press freedom groups had expressed alarm at the lawsuit,[29] describing the case as aSLAPP suit "intended to silence Cadwalladr's courageous investigative journalism";[29] however, the judge said that it was neither fair nor apt to describe it as such, because Cadwalladr had "no defence of truth", and her defence of public interest had "succeeded only in part".[30] On 24 June 2022, the High Court granted Banks leave to appeal on a question of law relating to the "serious harm" test.[31]
In February 2023, theCourt of Appeal rejected two of Banks' challenges, but ruled in his favour that continuing publication of the April 2019 TED Talk, after the Electoral Commission published a report on 29 April 2020 that found no evidence of Banks breaking the law in relation to campaign donations, had caused "serious harm" to Banks' reputation. The Court ordered that damages should be assessed for the harm incurred between 29 April 2020 and the date of the High Court ruling in June 2022.[32][33]
Press Gazette, the trade industry paper, said: "It has all been a huge price to pay for a freelance journalist who has been attacked over a statement that stemmed from investigative journalism into the activities of the biggest political donor in UK political history. And it is a judgment that means Banks, and others like him, will be protected in future by a sort of cloak of invisibility. When the risks are so high, most publishers will choose less risky targets for their investigations." It urged the newspaper industry to support her because of the chilling effects of the ruling: "And it is now beholden on all news publishers to support Cadwalladr in any future appeal to the Supreme Court because the judgment against her threatens to gag us all".[27]
On 28 April 2023, Cadwalladr was ordered by the court to pay Banks £35,000 in damages by 12 May 2023.[34] She was further ordered to pay more than £1m in costs.[35] In May 2023 Cadwalladr unsuccessfully sought permission to appeal to theSupreme Court against the costs order.[36][37] In November 2023, Cadwalladr's lawyers announced that they would be taking the case to theEuropean Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.[38]
Cadwalladr is a founder of "The Citizens", a journalism and campaigningnot-for-profit organisation registered as a UK-basedprivate company limited by guarantee.[39] The organisation is made up of journalists, filmmakers, advertising creatives, data scientists, artists, students, and lawyers. It aims to "power movements that confront the unchecked power of Big Tech and states" through storytelling.[40]
In 2023, Cadwalladr published an open letter praisingCarol Vorderman for speaking out about "corruption and the chancers, embezzlers, spivs, and hustlers who've been accused of making millions out of government contracts – and the ministers who've enabled them... no one else is doing it" and speaking "as if women had the right to live their lives without having to give a toss about societal expectations".[41]
Orwell Prize for Political Journalism in June 2018 (for her work "on the impact ofbig data on theEU Referendum and the 2016 US presidential election").[46]
Reporters without Borders "L'esprit de RSF" award in November 2018 (for her work on subversion of democratic processes).[47]
The 2018Polk Award for National Reporting with reporters from the New York Times.[48]
Political Studies Association Journalist of the Year in November 2018 (joint award withAmelia Gentleman) for her persistence and resilience in pursuing "investigative journalism on subjects such as personal data".[50]
Two 2018 British Journalism Awards for Technology Reporting and Investigation.[51]
Hatchwell, Emily;Calder, Simon (1995).Russia and the Republics. Traveller's Survival Kit. Oxford: Vacation-Work.ISBN1-85458-132-5.with additional research by Carole Cadwalladr and Anna Sutton[7]
^ab"The 2019 Pulitzer Prize Finalist in National Reporting".Pulitzer.org.Archived from the original on 17 April 2019.Finalist: Staff of The New York Times, with contributions from Carole Cadwalladr of The Guardian/The Observer of London : For reporting on how Facebook and other tech firms allowed the spread of misinformation and failed to protect consumer privacy, leading to Cambridge Analytica's theft of 50 million people's private information, data that was used to boost Donald Trump's campaign.
^Pollock, Ellen; Adrienne Carter (1 July 2019)."Times Wins Three Loeb Awards".The New York Times Company.Archived from the original on 14 July 2019. Retrieved14 July 2019.
