 | |
Type of site | News website |
|---|---|
| Editor | Steve Walker |
| URL | skwawkbox |
| Launched | 2012 |
The Skwawkbox is aleft-wingnews site based in theUnited Kingdom, founded in 2012 by Steve Walker.
The Skwawkbox states that its aim is to "present information and analysis that will rarely make it into themainstream media."[1] Founder Steve Walker has said: "The people we're trying to reach are what we call the outer parts of theVenn diagram. Not the real dedicated people on the left, but maybe their auntie or their uncle who reads theirFacebook page."[2]
According toBuzzFeed,The Skwawkbox has published a "regular run of stories that appear to have been briefed by insiders close to the top of theCorbyn project", suggesting that certain senior individuals in theLabour Party use it to get their messages out.[3][4] It has been involved in rallying online support for pro-Corbyn hashtags onTwitter[5] and emailing and petitioningMPs within the Labour Party.[6]
In common with otherleft-wing alternative media sites,The Skwawkbox's stance towards the Labour leadership became more critical after Corbyn stepped down andKeir Starmer waselected as Labour leader in 2020.[7]
In June 2017,The Skwawkbox published an article suggesting that the real death toll from theGrenfell Tower fire was being covered up, based on claims from "multiple sources" that the government had placed aD-Notice on coverage.[8] A correction was published later.[9]
There was no such notice, which ledMailOnline andThe Sun in turn to publish articles accusing the site of spreading "fake news".[8] Walker complained about theMailOnline article to theIndependent Press Standards Organisation. IPSO concluded that theMailOnline characterisations of the D-Notice story as "fake news" and of allegations againstTheresa May in the article as "false" were not misleading and the complaint was not upheld. See16690-17 Walker v Mail Online.[10]
TheMailOnline D-Notice story referred to Steve Walker's business dealings with theNHS. This aspect was also covered byThe Sun.[11] Both outlets published corrections to their accounts of these dealings.[12][13] The IPSO ruling noted thatMailOnline had offered to append the following footnote, with a similar wording to be published as a standalone correction:
A previous version of this article said that Foojit made money from the NHS “by selling its mailing system to the Levenshulme Health Clinic in Manchester”. Mr Walker has contacted us to point out that in fact Foojit’s mailing system software was provided to the Clinic for free. What the Health Clinic pays for is any letters it sends using Foojit’s services. In addition the article has been amended to say that the Skwawkbox blog posts published by Mr Walker reported on claims made by other sources. We are happy to make this clear.[14]
In November 2019, Labour MPAnna Turley suedUnite the Union and Steve Walker, editor ofThe Skwawkbox, forlibel in respect of an article which appeared onThe Skwawkbox on 7 April 2017.[15]
On 19 December 2019, following a six-day trial at theRoyal Courts of Justice, Turley won the libel claim against Unite and Walker and was awarded damages of £75,000.[16][17]
An application to appeal was filed,[18][19] but refused on 7 May 2020.[20]
The Skwawkbox subscribes to independent, Leveson-compliant press regulatorIMPRESS. In March 2018,Skwawkbox considered cutting ties with IMPRESS following the publication of a controversial 1961 political pamphlet by key IMPRESS supporterMax Mosley;[21] however, it has remained a member.[22] According to the regulator's 2017/18 annual report, it upheld three complaints againstThe Skwawkbox in the year up to 31 March 2018, the most of any member over the period. The same number of complaints were dismissed.[23]
In November 2018, IMPRESS ruled againstThe Skwawkbox for breaching standards in its reporting on Labour MPWes Streeting. The complaint upheld was that the publishers did not take all reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, because Streeting had only been given four hours to respond to the blog's enquiry.[24] The panel did not make a judgment on the factual accuracy of the article.[25]