On the weekend, I ran a column critical of NewsGuard and its recent notification of this blog that it was being “rated.” NewsGuard co-founder Gordon Crovitz responded to that column the next day. We have previously exchanged emails on my concerns over rating systems generally, including the Global Disinformation Index (which is not related to NewsGuard). I noted the concerns over bias from conservatives and members of Congress, but my primary concern remains with the concept of a rating system for media sites and blogs. While NewsGuard has given high ratings to some conservative sites, I generally oppose media rating systems due to free speech concerns and the use of these systems by the current anti-free speech movement.
I have always found Gordon to be open and frank about these subjects and I wanted readers on the blog to hear the opposing view from him directly. He was kind enough to consent to my posting the following. I will be posting a response to Gordon separately in the hopes that we can use this controversy as a foundation for a much needed discussion of rating systems and their impact on free speech.
Here is his response:
Jonathan:
We welcome the publicity, but your complaints in your July 27 commentary in the Hill about NewsGuard seem based on some misunderstandings.
First, we launched NewsGuard in 2018 as an alternative either to the Silicon Valley platforms secretly putting their thumbs on the scale for news and information sites or for calls to have the government censor social media and other online speech. Digital platforms were (and are) secretly rating news and information websites, with no disclosure about their criteria and no way for the people running the websites even to find out how they were rated. The only other entity rating news and information sites at the time we launched was GDI, which as you have written is a left-wing advocacy group–which like the digital platforms does not disclose its criteria or let publishers know how they are rated (except when information escapes such as the top 10 list of “risky” sites, which as you noted are all conservative or libertarian sites).
As I have written as a (libertarian-leaning) conservative former publisher, including in this recent Washington Examiner article https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/3091369/advertisers-fear-supporting-journalism-heres-how-to-fix-that/, I wouldn’t trust the platforms or a left-wing advocacy group either. We launched NewsGuard as the transparent and apolitical alternative, with the goal of giving news consumers basic information about websites they encounter online.
We reach out to the people running news and information websites for several purposes. We want to be sure we correctly assess sites based on our nine criteria. We’re a journalistic enterprise, so would always reach out for comment before concluding a site fails any of our criteria. We often quote the people running websites to provide more context about their site, whether they fail any criteria or not. More than a quarter of the websites we’ve rated have taken steps, usually relating to greater transparency, to get higher ratings.
In your column, you asserted that NewsGuard treats liberal sites preferentially compared with how we treat conservative or libertarian sites. This is false, as the many high scores for conservative and libertarian sites–and low scores for liberal sites–makes clear. You’ll see examples in the Washington Examiner article I linked to above. (There are right-wing sites like OAN that get low ratings such as for its Dominion Voting Systems claims, and there are left-wing sites that get low ratings for false claims such as about Donald Trump.)
In your Hill article, you claimed that “it does not appear” that we expect left-wing sites to disclose their point of view to readers. You gave the example of MSNBC. I am attaching our publicly available rating for this website. You will see it fails our criterion relating to news/opinion for failing to disclose its orientation. The MSNBC website scores lower than Fox News using our criteria because MSNBC fails to disclose its orientation whereas the website for Fox News does disclose its. (MSNBC also fails our criterion for gathering and presenting responsibly due to claims it made about Trump, Ron DeSantis, Steve Bannon and others.)
We also anticipated even back when we launched that there would be calls for government censorship if secret and partisan ratings were the only ones available in the market. I would have thought, including based on your recent book, that you’d especially welcome an accountable market alternative to censorship.
Finally, I appreciated your obituary for Bob Zimmer and your calls for the Chicago Principles to be widely adopted. (Whether our UChicago fully lives up to them is a topic for another day–I prefer the more energetic approach of Ed Levi to today’s more appeasing practices.) More information about websites is an exercise of free speech, and when done with transparent apolitical criteria equally applied seems to me a market solution you should support, not criticize or fear.
Regards,
Gordon
Presuming we could reach an ideal, I would say that the concept underlying an organization like NewsGuard is a viable idea.
But lest we fall down the recursive problem of “Who watches the watchers”, the idea has to be constrained to sheer truthability.
A reliable organization, like Underwriters Laboratories, that makes objective, testable assessments of the average factuality of a newsite or source, would be welcomed. And opinions must be off limits for truth/factual ratings, as they do not purport to be unassailably objective.
However, NewsGuard readily admits that its assessments do not depend merely on how truthful or factually accurate newsites are, but adds a whole slew of other far more subjective moral values based, or so-called societal standards criteria.
Furthermore, they will actually deem to assess opinion sites or contributions as viable or not viable, worthy or not worthy of consideration in respectable circles. As if they are the arbiters of what opinion is good and what other opinion is bad.
And that is the crux of the matter. Once an evaluator assigns credibility, reliability or acceptability of ideas, based upon their subjective or proprietary standards, instead of objective, testable facts, then that evaluator is more of a tyrant than a neutral reporter of viability.
I’m not sure an opinion article or post needs to be rated by anyone except the reader for their individual purposes. It seems to be a discount to the reader they are not astute enough to decide for themselves what they like or dislike, agree with or disagree with. What makes the “rater” the expert on the content other than their opinion. Please please, let’s get back to letting adults be adults and make their own decisions.
I’m trying to recall when the need for a group like NG was needed? What comes to mind was Obama complaining about conservative news organizations early in his first term. Have Americans come to a place in time that they’re unable to separate the chaff from the wheat? This blog of all blogs does not need a rating, folks here are quite capable.
We are so far from the Republic we used to be, it’s not even worthy of a reply
This has me so ticked off I have to comment again. Gordon wants you (and everyone else) to apply a “label” to themselves. Look everybody! I’m conservative! I don’t know how old Gordon is, but the belief that all things can be easily labelled is characteristic of a a child’s mind.
For people like me who recall the 1970s, and 1980s, or even the 1990s, what constitutes “liberal” or “conservative” has changed enormously over the years. Many of us who used to label ourselves liberal can no longer live with that moniker because liberals have gone so ridiculously far to the left. To hold views that used to be considered moderate can get you labelled as a right-winger.
No Jonathan, despite your kind words for him, I find Gordon to be very very dangerous. Go ahead, Gordon, put a red sticky note on my social media accounts.
Helen,
Great comment.
My sister, a registered Democrat, has said what is now liberal is so far to the left, it makes her just left of center and on some issues, right of center.
Many of her Democrat friends agree.
But she has had a few Democrat friends tell her she is thinking “wrong,” by not getting on board with the far leftists thinking. She was shocked by that.
@Upstate
I dunno; I have had similar conversations with people, but will they vote differently? I am sad that I’ve become so cynical, but when it comes down to the wire, I’m afraid they will not, it does not seem to be within their capability to do so. I hope I’m wrong though, glad there’s some sanity there.
My brother has not come around as of yet. 🤷🏻♂️ Still thinks inflation, etc., blah blah are a freak thing that will pass any day now, or Trump’s fault, somehow, DeSantis is a fascist burning gay people alive, etc., Vance (with whom I do not particularly agree, but come on) barbecues women on skewers if they don’t obey – exhausting. Utterly exhausting. My bro and I talk about the weather a lot, but even that can get contentious (‘We are all doomed by climate change! DOOMED!’, Followed by other non-sequiturs, because they can’t help it, ‘And the vaccine didn’t hurt anybody! I’ve had seven of them! And 2020 was a totally clean election!’). Those of us that turn the other cheek deserve medals at this point. 😂
@Cunningham
I actually looked them up. Older Gen X. IOW, the ones who raised the ‘Hamas’ generation.
I used to think hubris was environmental, but these guys are your typical elites, it seems to be wired in. I say a big fat ‘NO!’. Screw ’em!
Dear Jonathan (and Gordon) – There’s only one relevant reply to Gordon’s article.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Despite Gordon’s silver tongued assurances, the only way to know for sure if he is truly objective is to examine his outfit as closely as he wants to examine everyone else’s. In my view, spy vs. spy is no way to live in a free country. And he’s making money off it. Someone always has an angle.
@Helen,
You’re making Jonathan’s point or rather echoing it.
(Why he hates these rating sites in general…)
But to Gordon’s point… our news sources censor not just what news is being presented, but allowing or encouraging a bias to that news.
Note that while bias will always exist to some extent, the goal was always to keep that bias in check. Only today… that bias is encouraged.
I do understand Gordon’s point and why he created News Guard.
But the problem is that while Gordon may be sincere in his views… its the same slippery slope that the others followed and led to our current situation.
Hence any ‘news quality rating’ system will fail in the long term.
-G
Follow the money. Who is funding the self appointed information guru?
@BTeboe
Likely the usual suspects. The guys mentioned in the article are not exactly salt of the earth themselves, though. They are on Wikipedia. Look them up while you still can (and screenshot with time stamps).
Generational echo chambers, with generational entitlement, and generational wealth. Sounds an awful lot like something that rhymes with ‘dude-alism’. Only this time, ironically due to elitist cloistering in a free country, the ‘serf’ person is actually better informed and more educated than they are this time around.
Their fantasy land can’t help but shatter, self-deception is not sustainable.
It’s much ado about nothing. Intractable idealogues seeking confirmation bias will keep favor with their preferred sites regardless of ratings. It is, however, welcome what NewsGuard has to say about MSNBC. Now, can it get NBC to drop the race-baiting, fearmongering, and hateful network?
It’s a browser extension which may soon be required on all websites as the government guard of news guard.
2021:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/04/27/america-social-media-problem-newsguard-484757
Uh, that’s all well and good, I suppose, but the fact remains, no one asked for NewsGuard to butt in to begin with. This changes nothing about the fact that thinking people do not require the hand holding or that these arrogant fools are blinded by self-importance and are seemingly bargaining for the validation of such. I’m sure all gestapos feel justified. 🙄
In short: nobody asked for NewsGuard to exist in the first place. *They* decided. Am I supposed to feel good about the fact they are willing to tell me *politely* why they are, uninvited, hampering the free flow of thoughts, ideas, and discourse? Spare me.
GEB and I think alike on this.
I just had the occasion to explain just such a method to an acquaintance at a Facebook discussion where he was spouting the Democrat Party Talking Points re Trump and all things related to him while holding forth about Biden….and noting he just would not vote for Trump no matter what…including thus….Harris and a yet un-named VP nominee that would be hand picked by the Party Leaders exactly as was Harris.
I suggested his views were formed by the garbage being peddled by the Media and Social Media sites….and that he should broaden his array of information sources to improve the likelihood of finding at least different if not better an array of sources and thus better inform himself.
I also told him to get Professor Turley’s book….”The Indispensable Right” and also “Big Intel” and have a read of them both and see if he might begin to see things in a different light.
In fact we would be far better informed were we to totally ignore the media and social media and instead…..read….read…and read some more from non-mass media and social media sites and sources…..you know….like undertake more a classical education instead of being spoon fed bovine fecal matter by the current American Educational and News systems.
If One is so utter clueless as to not grasp the bias of everything MSDNC puts out….I suppose reading is not going to be one of their skills and critical thinking certainly not of their genetic makeup.
Cue some of the posters to found trolling here for example.
Ralph Chappell,
Well said.
Take a look at The Free Press’s high school winner of their essay contest concerning reading and books, A Constitution for Teenage Happiness
https://www.thefp.com/p/free-press-high-school-essay-contest-winner
Thank you for the freepress link and the essay winner.
It’s like true love. It only grows and blooms over time, surprisingly.
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have.
“ While NewsGuard has given high ratings to conservative cites, I generally oppose media rating systems due to free speech concerns and the use of these systems by the current anti-free speech movement.”
Professor Turley seems to be more concerned about being scrutinized. Free speech does NOT make anyone immune from critique, scrutiny, and yes…getting rated. NewsGuard is exercising its free speech rights to offer its views to the public and they make their criteria available to everyone. Turley seems bothered by the idea that he or anyone can be rated. Ironically, Turley rates organizations by how anti-free speech they are every day.
Attorneys routinely have their work criticized, as in counter-arguments to their legal briefs. But having one’s blog given an overall “rating” is a far cry from criticizing specific positions and arguments taken by Prof. Turley. Newsguard is setting itself up as some kind of unassailable standard, which it isn’t.
In reading Mr. Gordon’s response, I found a number of issues you identified in your column that were damning to his attempts to simply be ignored. His disdain at Media Matters maybe warranted however, to close with that is an attempt to link you to what Media Matters does and the two aren’t even comparable. BTW, why does Mr. Gordon think he is the arbiter of Truth and credibility????? Did he get ordained by Ms. Nina Jankowicz?
Proofreader hello: First paragraph should be “sites” not “cites.”
Regarding this letter, it is entirely par for the course. Justifying the unjustifiable seems to be the raison d’etre of the left. This guy is trying to pass himself off as a libertarian? Acting as de facto thought police would seem antithetical to libertarian principles.
This whole thing just underlines the fact that he who controls the words controls the world. The right has ceded the battleground of words without a single linguistic shot fired. All they do on the right is babble about 2A. I am often bemused by the left’s presumption of the moral and intellectual highground. They are like children who declare themselves, a priori, king of the mountain, and dare everybody else to knock them off – but on their terms, which change according to their convenience.
Who is Joe Schmoe aka whatever this guy’s name is to presume to “guard” the news? Who asked him?
In my opinion, interfering with someone’s freedom of speech by appointing oneself “guard of the news” is a 1A violation, because the rating insinuates itself into the words themselves like a fungus.
Nice letter but I have never needed someone else to screen my news sites. We have the internet these days and one can rapidly roar through the news site both local and national and international with ease. I really don’t think that we need to have someone else give us “their perspective”. And in fact I totally reject it. Like any adult, I learn over time what is true and what is not. Luckily from a young age I got to study history and know it almost like a second language and often read books on both sides and on a huge variety of subjects. That gives one a reasonable basis to judge present events and in context and perspective. I particularly despise screening groups that then sell their perspective to companies and advertisers in an attempt to sway the market and deny income to honest news organizations. I do not expect perfection but I also expect skepticism when dealing with the government.
We have enough Media Matters and don’t need more.
So then… just don’t use NewsGuard? It’s a browser extension. You have to install it to see their ratings.
“We have the internet these days”
Yes, but we don’t have effective search engines for conservative viewpoints. The algorithms used discriminate against conservative opinions, and today, one cannot immediately go to the end of the search list. The good thing is that this is making more intelligent conservative people more resourceful and better educated while those on the left become less and less intelligent.