Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

The Canary (website)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Canary
Type of site
New media outlet
Founder(s)Kerry-Anne Mendoza
Nancy Mendoza[1]
EditorDrew Rose[2]
Revenue£250,000 (2016)
URLthecanary.co
Launched2015
Current statusActive

The Canary is a left-wing news website based in the United Kingdom. While focusing on UK political affairs, it also has a "Global" section, a satire section ("Off the Perch"), and "Science", "Environment", and "Health" sections.[3] Founded in 2015 by Kerry-Anne Mendoza and her wife Nancy Mendoza, the website increased in popularity around the time of the 2017 United Kingdom general election.[4] It was initially funded through a combination of advertising and a group of about 1500 supporters, but by 2020 had moved to a largely reader-funded model.

According to Press Gazette, in July 2022 The Canary was the third most popular politics news website in the UK behind Politico and Politics Home.[5]

History

[edit]

According to editor-in-chief Kerry-Anne Mendoza, The Canary was created in October 2015 with five founding members in an attempt to "diversify the media".[6] The website was funded by advertising and monthly contributions from around 1,500 supporters in August 2016.[7] It published 9,000 articles in its first two years.[8] According to Mendoza, a major factor motivating The Canary's founders was scepticism of the mainstream media, a scepticism that was shared by Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party. In his first address as Labour leader, he attacked pundits, arguing that they did not understanding the discontent among many ordinary British voters, and talked about the "power of social media".[7] Following the 2017 United Kingdom general election, the BBC reported that websites "such as The Canary, The Skwawkbox, and Another Angry Voice are making a huge impact and earning a massive following" and such sites were considered to have contributed to sensationalist reporting of the election.[4][9]

After the 2017 general election, The Canary was targetted by the group Labour Together (LT), which wanted to "defeat Corbynism" and prevent any future Labour leader from following Corbyn's policies. LT used social media to encourage businesses which advertised on The Canary to remove their support of the website. As a result, The Canary 's readership fell and it was forced to restructure the newsroom.[10]

In September 2020, The Canary announced it would fund a new investigative unit staffed by two journalists for six months. In a statement, it said "A reader-funded investigative unit that is responsive to the requests and demands of The Canary readership is something people have asked us for since our inception. We believe this unit will be of value to our existing readers and attract new readers. We hope they will work with us to secure funding to continue the unit after the initial six months."[2] Drew Rose, formerly director of operations,[11][12] became editor-in-chief, replacing Bex Sumner. Rose said the site had survived the "decimation" of its advertising income and "politically-motivated attacks on our staff", and had shifted to a 95% reader-funded model.[2] In July 2021, Mendoza stepped down as director and editor-at-large, handing over her shares in Canary Media Limited to colleagues. She was named as chief operating officer and Emily Apple as senior editor.[13]

Political standpoint

[edit]

The Canary is left-leaning and is frequently sceptical of the mainstream British press.[14][15][16] It was generally supportive of former labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.[14] In common with other left-wing alternative media in the United Kingdom, its stance towards the Labour leadership became more critical after Corbyn stepped down and Keir Starmer won the 2020 Labour Party leadership election.[17]

Describing her website to Journalism.co.uk, Canary editor-in-chief Kerry-Anne Mendoza said: "For us, this is ultimately about democracy. Informed consent in the public is the bedrock of democracy, and if that informed consent isn't there because people aren't aware of the kind of information that they need to be, they won't be equipped to make the decent democratic decisions that they need to, say, for example, on climate change, the justice system, or whether austerity is a positive economic policy."[6] Mendoza stated it was "a complete coincidence" that the website was created shortly after Corbyn's leadership victory, and added: "We don't have any affiliations with political parties, we don't have any affiliations with political organisations, and we're not actually ostensibly left-wing." She called the site's editorial stance "a counterpoint to conservative media" and "broadly liberal".[18] Mendoza also stated that The Canary was "biased in favour of social justice, equal rights – those are non-negotiable things. We're in this as an issue-driven organisation. ... Every press organisation has an editorial stance and we're certainly no different."[19]

Regulation and accuracy

[edit]

In August 2017, The Canary joined the voluntary state-approved press regulator IMPRESS.[20] In its first year with the regulator, The Canary was the most complained about IMPRESS member, but the regulator upheld just two of the 58 complaints they received during 2017–2018 about its news reporting.[8] In April 2019, The Canary was given an overall pass rating and a pass on eight out of nine factors (it failed on "handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly") by NewsGuard, an organisation which evaluates news outlets for trustworthiness.[21][22]

A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism[23] described The Canary as "a left-wing partisan site" and an example of "alternative and partisan brands" which have "a political or ideological agenda and their user base tends to passionately share these views."[24] Its trust rating was given as 4.69 where 10 is fully trusted, making it more trusted than the Daily Mail, Buzzfeed News, and The Sun but less than the Daily Mirror, the regional press, or any broadsheet newspaper, although its trust level among its own users was at 6.65 (a similar level to The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, and the regional press).[23][24]

In response to criticism, Mendoza said: "We are human beings and we make mistakes. We clean up the mess and make sure it's clear to our readership."[25] On 14 March 2019, The Canary said that it had produced 10,000 articles since its creation and two of its articles required deletion after editorial review, representing 0.02% of its content.[26]

Business model

[edit]

In April 2016, Mendoza said in Free & Fearless (a magazine produced by Hacked Off) that "we are attracting an audience of 3.5 million unique users per month. On top of this: every two hours, 24 hours a day, seven days a week – someone becomes a paid subscriber of The Canary. ... Our growing traffic is attracting advertisers who are now offering us a floor RPM (payment per 1,000 hits) of £3 and a ceiling of £9."[27] According to The Canary's FAQ, around half of the website's revenue is raised from online advertising, and the other half from reader subscriptions.[26] According to one journalism lecturer, while the website is skilled at promoting its stories, the primary reason for its viral popularity may be its political standpoint.[28]

In its FAQ, the website explains its business model, as "Each writer and section editor is paid in two ways. Firstly, each and every article receives a flat-rate equal payment from our monthly income from supporters. So with each new supporter, the pay per article goes up for everyone every month. Secondly, each article receives a top-up payment based directly on the percentage of web traffic, and therefore advertising income, that articles generate during a given calendar month."[26] This pay-per-click model has been criticised for promoting clickbait as writers are only paid for their work if it becomes viral.[29] Mendoza disputes this, saying that the payment structure means that people who generate the revenues get a fair share.[7]

During 2016–2018, the website had an editorial team of around 30, although only five of The Canary's staff earn enough money to work full-time.[7][30] It had an annual turnover of £250,000 in 2016.[31] In August 2019, The Canary emailed users to announce that it would rely more on its team and less on freelance contributors due to a reduced income.[32][33] After the email was shared online, Mendoza said on Twitter that by the middle of this August the website would "leave the gig economy".[34] The Canary said this was due to Facebook and Google changing their algorithms, which reduced the site's traffic and therefore advertising income, and to the campaign to persuade advertisers to blacklist the site. It said it was "susceptible to pressure from political Zionists, and our advertising revenue is under fire."[33][34][35] The Canary mounted a recruitment drive for one thousand additional subscribers, which it reported it had achieved by early August, saying this had secured its immediate future.[36]

In October 2022 staff at the organisation announced that they had "overthrown" the site’s management and had been running the publisher as a co-operative since June of that year, after discovering evidence of "gross inequalities and gross mismanagement that was rampant in the company".[37]

Reception

[edit]

In 2016, Carl Miller of Demos has said that, while the "digital world" has been "democratizing", he believes that sites such as The Canary, which reflect a single worldview, cut down on dissenting information and are likely to make people "even angrier, more outraged, more certain that that [sic] people we disagree with are evil ... which isn't good for reasoned, civil debate."[7] In January 2017, Owen Jones told PR Week that the website "promotes conspiracy theories and a lot of things that just aren't right. I worry about the Canary-isation of the left, where it ends up in a bizarre sub-culture that anyone who doesn't agree is seen as part of a conspiracy. But then you do get those blogs on left and right."[38] In July 2017, Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite the Union, said to the Morning Star: "The media needs regulating, the control of information shouldn't be in the hands of a few billionaires. Alternative media needs supporting ... . But I'd support everything that chips away at Establishment control of the narrative — The Canary, the Skwawkbox, all of it."[39]

In September 2017, Nick Robinson of the BBC listed the website, along with right-wing sites such as Westmonster, among alternative news sites waging a "guerrilla war" against the BBC[40] to promote an anti-establishment agenda.[41][42][43] Drew Rose, The Canary's director of operations, responded that "Nick Robinson's analogy that we are waging a 'guerrilla war' is apt – but it's not the war he suggests. ... For years now, swaths of the population have been ignored or otherwise failed by the established media. We're fighting to serve those people. We're doing that by helping to build a more diverse media operating outside of the establishment."[11]

In November 2020, Leeds University political scientist Jonathan Dean wrote that "websites such as Evolve Politics, Skwawkbox and The Canary have aped a more tabloid style, with short, punchy headlines and an often rather sensationalised style of reporting. The Canary, in particular, has faced criticism for its highly partisan presentation of political news stories, with critics often deeming it symptomatic of the rise of so-called 'fake news' ... ."[44]

Allegations of antisemitism

[edit]

In early 2019, the campaign organisation Stop Funding Fake News (SFFN) described The Canary as promoting conspiracy theories, defending antisemitism, and publishing fake news.[45][46] SFFN launched a campaign to pressure advertisers not to allow their ads to run on certain websites. SFFN persuaded Macmillan Cancer Support to suspend advertising on The Canary while it reviewed online ad placement.[47] Then-MP Chris Williamson described the SFFN's campaign against The Canary as "sinister".[16] In March 2020, advertising for Tom Stoppard's play Leopoldstadt, which is about the legacy of the Holocaust, was removed from The Canary after allegations of antisemitism from SFFN.[46] In response to criticism from SFFN, The Canary co-founder Nancy Mendoza, who is Jewish, said that The Canary had taken a position of solidarity with the Palestinian people, and was therefore critical of the Israeli government and of Zionism, but that it was firmly opposed to antisemitism.[48]

In January 2021, Antisemitism and the Alternative Media, a report by Daniel Allington and Tanvi Joshi, academics at King's College London, commissioned by John Mann, Baron Mann, the UK government's independent advisor on antisemitism,[49] stated that The Canary, alongside The Skwawkbox, "promote[s] a negative view of Jews"[49] and views "life [as] a struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed, which leaves an in-group of 'socialists' – i.e. those who understand themselves to side with the oppressed – at constant risk of attack from a politically-defined Zionist enemy that must be driven out of the Labour Party." The authors of the report said that a quote from one of The Canary's co-founders "characterise[s] Israel as a European settler state, suggesting that practically every aspect of Israel is racist."[50] In response, the press regulator IMPRESS began a preliminary investigation into both websites, reviewing 41 articles and one tweet from the two publications to assess whether they were in breach of the IMPRESS Standards Code Clause on discrimination.[49][51]

In November 2021, IMPRESS released its findings that the material that they reviewed was "not sensationalist and does not use language that is likely to provoke hatred or put a person or group in fear, nor does it appear to be intended to have that effect. Those that disagree with the Publisher's views on subjects such as Zionism may find these views offensive, adversarial or provocative but this in and of itself does not rise to the level of threat to, or targeting of, persons or groups on the basis of their protected characteristics as envisaged by the Code."[51] IMPRESS dismissed the matter after finding that "of the material in remit, none of it reached the threshold which would engage the discrimination clause and, therefore, further investigation would be unjustified".[49][51][52]

Notable articles

[edit]

The Canary has published a number of stories which have been notable enough to be picked up by mainstream media outlets.

Electoral fraud investigations

[edit]

Following the 2015 United Kingdom general election, The Canary "dug into assorted expense claims and activities in (target) seats", according to Michael White in The Guardian,[53] after a whistleblower contacted the website to allege illegal telephone push polling by the Conservatives.[53][54][55]

Portland Communications story

[edit]

In June 2016, a Canary article saying that the 2016 parliamentary revolt against Corbyn "appears to have been orchestrated" by Portland Communications went viral and was repeated by Len McCluskey on Andrew Marr's Sunday morning BBC programme. The article listed links between partners and employees of the PR firm, where Alastair Campbell is a senior advisor, and members of the centre-left Fabian Society and other politicians on the right of the Labour Party, without providing evidence that the firm had organised the revolt.[56][57]

Laura Kuenssberg

[edit]

The Canary has been critical of Laura Kuenssberg's coverage of Jeremy Corbyn, and BBC News politics coverage more generally.[58] The website promoted a petition calling for Kuenssberg's resignation, hosted by 38 Degrees. 38 Degrees later took the petition down, with the agreement of the originator, saying that the petition "had become a focal point for sexist and hateful abuse made towards Laura Kuenssberg on Twitter."[59] The Canary reported Craig Murray's view that the petition was probably taken down due to "Establishment pressure",[60] while ethical entrepreneur Ian Middleton wrote in The Huffington Post that "if one looks at the list of comments published ... it's difficult to find anything remotely aggressive or sexist", and the accusations of abuse "may have been part of an orchestrated campaign on behalf of those looking to discredit the petition itself."[61]

In the fourteen months between the withdrawal of the petition in May 2016 and 20 July 2017, according to Jasper Jackson of the New Statesman, The Canary ran "at least 17 articles criticising Kuenssberg.[58] In September 2017, The Canary published an inaccurate headline that "(Kuenssberg's) listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference". Although the article itself stated correctly that she had been invited to speak at a fringe event, the website made several changes to its article after it was first published, without detailed clarifications. The Canary later modified its headline and added a statement released by the BBC in response, stating that she would not be speaking. In December 2017, the press regulator IMPRESS adjudicated that the website had broken its code by publishing an inaccurate headline, not making sufficient efforts to check the facts, and failing to correct the inaccuracy with due prominence.[12][62][63] During the IMPRESS investigation, two board members were recused after publicly criticising Kuenssberg.[64] The Canary's tweet[65] remained online and was widely shared on social media.[66]

Carl David Goette-Luciak

[edit]

In September 2018, The Canary republished an article by Max Blumenthal (originally published by MintPress News) attacking Nicaragua-based Carl David Goette-Luciak, a freelance journalist reporting on anti-government protests for The Guardian, days after the Committee to Protect Journalists warned that that Goette-Luciak was the victim of a "targeted online harassment campaign" by supporters of the government. Shortly afterwards, Goette-Luciak was detained, interrogated and deported. The Canary published a further article by Blumenthal attacking the reporter, and a lecture by The Canary's editor due to be given at The Guardian's offices was protested against by the National Union of Journalists and subsequently cancelled, leading to some controversy.[67][68][69]

Readership

[edit]

During July 2016, The Canary achieved over 7.5 million page views, ranking 97th in readership among British media organisations, slightly higher than The Spectator and The Economist. The site's publishers, Canary Media, rose 47 spots from 126th in June to 79th in July among the top UK publishers.[70][71] By June 2020, the site had fallen out of the top 1,000 with just over 600,000 pageviews.[72][73] The majority of its site traffic comes from Facebook.[7]

A 2018 study by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism found The Canary to be used by 2% of the UK news audience, compared with The Times website on 5% or The Guardian on 15%. Its readers were more left wing than readers of all but one other publication in the survey.[23][24]

According to Press Gazette, in July 2022 The Canary had a readership of 654,000, with 2.3 million page views, and reached 1.31% of the UK population, making it the third most popular politics news website in the UK behind Politico and Politics Home.[5]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Mendoza, Nancy [@NancyWMendoza] (30 November 2020). "Thanks to @skwawkbox for this act of solidarity. I'm Jewish. @TheMendozaWoman is my wife and I co-founded @TheCanaryUK with her. After 10 years of marriage I can honestly say she's not antisemitic!" (Tweet). Retrieved 7 December 2020 – via Twitter.
  2. ^ a b c Tobitt, Charlotte (10 September 2020). "The Canary hires journalists and creates investigative team year after making cuts". Press Gazette. Retrieved 14 February 2021.
  3. ^ "Official website". The Canary. 14 August 2016. Retrieved 14 August 2016.
  4. ^ a b Rajan, Amol (13 June 2017). "Five election lessons for the media". BBC News. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
  5. ^ a b "Ranked: Most popular politics news websites in UK". Press Gazette. 1 September 2022. Retrieved 9 October 2022.
  6. ^ a b Scott, Caroline (23 October 2015). "How news outlet The Canary aims to 'diversify media'". Journalism.co.uk. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  7. ^ a b c d e f Spence, Alex (18 August 2016). "Jeremy Corbyn and the disruptive Canary". Politico. Retrieved 30 November 2017.
  8. ^ a b Tobitt, Charlotte (9 January 2019). "Left-wing website The Canary most complained about Impress-regulated publication of 2017/18". Press Gazette. Retrieved 7 February 2019.
  9. ^ Chadwick, Andrew; Vaccari, Cristian; O'Loughlin, Ben (20 April 2018). "Do tabloids poison the well of social media? Explaining democratically dysfunctional news sharing". New Media & Society. 20 (11). SAGE Publications: 4255–4274. doi:10.1177/1461444818769689. ISSN 1461-4448. S2CID 53564932. In the fallout from the 2017 UK general election there was much discussion about the growth of sensationalism in online political news as a result of the popularity of new, ideologically-slanted news sites such as, for example, Breitbart UK and Westmonster on the right and the Canary and Evolvepolitics on the left.
  10. ^ Asthana, Anushka (14 September 2024). "'Corbyn had flown too close to the sun': how Labour insiders battled the left and plotted the party's path back to power". The Observer. Retrieved 15 September 2024.
  11. ^ a b Ruddick, Graham (28 September 2017). "Alternative news sites attack Nick Robinson's claim of 'guerrilla war' on BBC". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  12. ^ a b Di Stefano, Mark (8 November 2017). "The Canary Is Being Investigated Over The Accuracy Of An Article About Laura Kuenssberg". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  13. ^ Connolly, Robin (21 July 2021). "Editor-at-large of The Canary steps down". Bristol 24/7. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  14. ^ a b Hill, Steve (2019). "Fake News and Trolling". Mobile First Journalism: Producing News for Social and Interactive Media. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-28931-4. OCLC 1053623541. If there was a British equivalent of Breitbart it would be The Canary (thecanary.co). The left-leaning news site was a cheerleader for Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. ... It is a simplification to say hyperpartisan news is automatically fake news.
  15. ^ Jackson, Jasper. "Hyper-partisan Corbynite websites show how the left can beat the tabloids online". New Statesman.
  16. ^ a b "Suspended MP Chris Williamson defends pro-Corbyn hyper-partisan The Canary, attacking 'sinister' bid to close it". The Jewish Chronicle. 4 August 2019. Retrieved 21 November 2020.
  17. ^ McDowell-Naylor, Declan; Thomas, Richard; Cushion, Stephen (15 July 2020). "How left-wing media sites have changed their coverage of the Labour Party under Keir Starmer". The Conversation. Retrieved 22 October 2020.
  18. ^ Le Conte, Marie (10 August 2016). "How A Pro-Corbyn Viral Website With A Pay-Per-Click Business Model Is Taking Over Social Media". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 15 August 2016.
  19. ^ Waterson, Jim (6 May 2017). "The Rise Of The Alt-Left British Media". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
  20. ^ Mayhew, Freddy (24 August 2017). "The Canary joins Impress to become alternative press regulator's 66th member". Press Gazette. Retrieved 2 January 2018.
  21. ^ Waterson, Jim (24 April 2019). "Untrustworthy news sites could be flagged automatically in UK". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  22. ^ Walker, James (24 April 2019). "US start-up Newsguard rolls out trust rankings for major UK newsbrands". Press Gazette. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
  23. ^ a b c "Digital News Report 2018". Digital News Report. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism/University of Oxford. 14 June 2018. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  24. ^ a b c Newman, Nic (14 June 2018). "'They tell the truth I like' – Partisan And Alternative News Sites in Europe". European Journalism Observatory. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  25. ^ Harrison, Andrew (6 August 2017). "Can you trust the mainstream media?". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 March 2019.
  26. ^ a b c "About & FAQ". The Canary. Archived from the original on 28 March 2019. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
  27. ^ Mendoza, Kerry-Anne (April 2016). "The Canary is a new media outlet shaking up journalism in a radical way" (PDF). Free & Fearless. Hacked Off. p. 6. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  28. ^ Hill, Steve (2019). "Fake News and Trolling". Mobile First Journalism: Producing News for Social and Interactive Media. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-28931-4. OCLC 1053623541. Kerry-Anne Mendoza, Canary editor, states the site's aims: 'Today, a handful of powerful moguls control our mainstream media. As such, its coverage is largely conservative. But we have created a truly independent and viable alternative. One that isn't afraid to challenge the status quo, to ask the hard questions, and to have an opinion.' Their skilled use of social media optimisation when promoting stories on social media has meant their stories are often widely shared. In some respects they share the traditions of journalism, e.g. they usually seek to break exclusive stories and expand the public debate. But with a strong commitment to a particular political cause their reporting is by definition one sided. Indeed, this may be the primary reason for their popularity.
  29. ^ "Canary Wings It" (JPEG image). Private Eye. No. 1419. Pressdram. 26 May 2016. p. 10.
  30. ^ "Team". 4 December 2018. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  31. ^ Mayhew, Freddy (20 October 2016). "The Canary: From £500 start-up to top-100 UK news website in the space of a year". Press Gazette. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  32. ^ "Pro-Corbyn website The Canary denies it is antisemitic, then blames 'political Zionists' for forcing it to downsize". The Jewish Chronicle. 2 August 2019. Retrieved 2 August 2019.
  33. ^ a b Jewish News Reporter (2 August 2019). "'Fake news' site forced to downsize, blaming campaign by 'political Zionists'". Jewish News. Retrieved 29 August 2024.
  34. ^ a b Tobitt, Charlotte (5 August 2019). "The Canary blames attacks by 'political Zionists' for failing business model as cuts fall". Press Gazette. Retrieved 23 July 2020.
  35. ^ Doherty, Rosa (6 August 2019). "Co-Chair not the slightest bit embarrassed". The Jewish Chronicle. Archived from the original on 20 January 2020. Retrieved 19 January 2020.
  36. ^ Mendoza, Kerry-Anne (7 August 2019). "You did it! You saved The Canary". The Canary. Retrieved 8 August 2019.
  37. ^ Maher, Bron (3 October 2022). "The Canary staff 'overthrow directors' to establish a co-op". Press Gazette. Retrieved 3 October 2022.
  38. ^ Burne-James, Sam (9 January 2017). "Grilled: Owen Jones, Guardian columnist, author, activist... and sushi socialist?". PRWeek. Retrieved 25 January 2017.
  39. ^ "Len McCluskey interview: Extraordinary times in politics". Morning Star. 30 June 2017. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  40. ^ Collins, John; Mills, Tom (29 September 2017). "The BBC versus The Canary: two experts have their say". The Conversation. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  41. ^ Ruddick, Graham (27 September 2017). "Alternative news sites waging guerrilla war on BBC, says Nick Robinson". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  42. ^ Wimhurst, Liane (28 September 2017). "Nick Robinson: Attacking the 'MSM' is now a political strategy". I. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  43. ^ Robinson, Nick (29 September 2017). "Nick Robinson's Steve Hewlett Memorial Lecture: We need to 're-make the case for impartiality' in the news media". Press Gazette. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  44. ^ Dean, Jonathan (8 November 2020). "Left politics and popular culture in Britain: From left-wing populism to 'popular leftism'". Politics. SAGE Publications: 3–17. doi:10.1177/0263395720960661. ISSN 0263-3957.
  45. ^ "Our fight against fake news is starting to turn the tide". politics.co.uk. 7 August 2019. Retrieved 23 July 2020.
  46. ^ a b Frot, Mathilde (2 March 2020). "Tom Stoppard play boycotts 'anti-Jewish propaganda' news site". Jewish News. Retrieved 27 July 2020.
  47. ^ Frot, Mathilde (27 March 2019). "Anti fake news activists persuade cancer charity to remove advert on The Canary". Jewish News. Retrieved 29 March 2019.
  48. ^ Mendoza, Nancy (5 April 2019). "Dear Haters, The Canary isn't antisemitic, you just don't like our politics". The Canary. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  49. ^ a b c d Maher, Bron (7 December 2021). "No further investigation into Canary and Skwawkbox anti-Semitism". Press Gazette. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  50. ^ Allington, Daniel; Joshi, Tanvi (5 March 2021). "Antisemitism and the 'alternative media'". Research Portal, King's College, London. Retrieved 26 November 2021.
  51. ^ a b c "Initiated Investigation Report 364 – The Canary and The Skwawkbox" (PDF). IMPRESS. 21 October 2021. Retrieved 1 December 2021.
  52. ^ "IMA Response". Independent Media Association. 25 November 2021. Retrieved 25 November 2021.
  53. ^ a b White, Michael (1 June 2016). "Why is there so little noise about the Tory election fraud claims?". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 June 2016.
  54. ^ Editorial (2 June 2016). "The Guardian view on policing elections: harder, but no less important". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 June 2016.
  55. ^ Crick, Michael (21 June 2016). "Could referendum 'push-polling' influence the result?". Channel 4 News.
  56. ^ Singleton, David (29 June 2016). "Is it true that a PR firm full of Blairites is orchestrating the Labour coup?". New Statesman. Retrieved 21 August 2016.
  57. ^ Watts, Jake; Bale, Tim (29 October 2018). "Populism as an intra-party phenomenon: The British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn". The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 21 (1). SAGE Publications: 99–115. doi:10.1177/1369148118806115. ISSN 1369-1481. S2CID 149518228. McCluskey suggested that these sinister forces could be linked to the public relations firm Portland Communications – an organisation which he claimed had clear links with Tony Blair and the Labour right. This conspiracy theory was largely drawn from an article published on the pro-Corbyn website The Canary that (falsely, as it turned out) argued that the firm had been directly behind the attempted coup.
  58. ^ a b Jackson, Jasper (20 July 2017). "Do the Canary and co have the skill and stamina to take on the popular press?". New Statesman. Retrieved 30 November 2017.
  59. ^ Jackson, Jasper (10 May 2016). "Laura Kuenssberg petition taken down over sexist abuse". The Guardian. Retrieved 10 May 2016.
  60. ^ Mendoza, Kerry-anne (11 May 2016). "Petition to sack BBC's Laura Kuenssberg was 'probably' removed 'under establishment pressure', says former UK ambassador". The Canary. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
  61. ^ Middleton, Ian (12 May 2016). "It's Going to Take More Than an Online Petition to Stamp Out Bias at the BBC". HuffPost. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
  62. ^ "Impress rules Canary breached standards code over Laura Kuenssberg article". Press Gazette. 20 December 2017.
  63. ^ Hopkins, Steven (21 December 2017). "Laura Kuenssberg Tory Conference Speaker Story Sees The Canary Make Front Page Correction". Huffington Post. Retrieved 22 September 2019.
  64. ^ Ruddick, Graham (15 November 2017). "Impress excludes board members from Laura Kuenssberg article inquiry". the Guardian. Retrieved 18 February 2021.
  65. ^ "The Canary on Twitter" (in German). Twitter. 14 June 2020. Archived from the original on 14 June 2020. Retrieved 18 February 2021. We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She's listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference.
  66. ^ Cushion, Stephen (19 December 2018). "Journalism under (ideological) threat: Safeguarding and enhancing public service media into the 21st century". Journalism. 20 (1). SAGE Publications: 69–72. doi:10.1177/1464884918807036. ISSN 1464-8849.
  67. ^ Mayhew, Freddy (5 October 2018). "NUJ cancels event with Canary editor after reports targeting Guardian freelancer covering protests in Nicaragua lead to his deportation". Press Gazette. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  68. ^ Stefano, Mark Di (2 October 2018). "A Journalist Has Been Deported From Nicaragua After Being Doxxed By An Online Mob". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  69. ^ Barnett, Adam (5 October 2018). "The Canary is not journalism - it's a government mouthpiece in waiting". Politics.co.uk. Retrieved 25 November 2020.
  70. ^ "UK Media Publishers and Publications – Ranked for July 2016". SimilarWeb. Retrieved 19 September 2016.
  71. ^ Mandhai, Shafik (19 October 2016). "The Canary and leftist media find sudden success in UK". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 4 January 2022.
  72. ^ "Thecanary.co Analytics – Market Share Stats & Traffic Report". SimilarWeb. Retrieved 4 August 2020.
  73. ^ "Kerry-Anne Mendoza leaves the Canary". The Spectator. 13 September 2021. Retrieved 4 January 2022.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Canary_(website)&oldid=1245837298"