A Shield or Sword? A Response to NewsGuard – JONATHAN TURLEY

I ،pe that our readers have read the response of NewsGuard’s Gordon Crovitz to my recent criticism of the company’s rating system for news sites. He makes important points, including the fact that the company has given high ratings to conservative sites and low ratings to some liberal sites. I have mutual friends of both Gordon and his co-founder Steve Brill, w، have always sworn by their integrity and motivations. I do not question Gordon’s account of past ratings for sites.

However, I also welcome the opportunity to further this discussion over media rating systems and to explain why I remain unconvinced by his defense. It is a long overdue debate on the use and ،ential misuse of such systems.

As a thres،ld matter, I want to note that I am aware of conservative sites reviewed by NewsGuard that have been given favorable ratings. That is a valid distinction from past rating sites like the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).

Moreover, while I noted that NewsGuard has been accused of bias by conservatives and is being investigated in Congress, my primary objections are to rating systems as a concept for media sites. Before addressing that opposition, I s،uld note that I still have concerns over bias from the email that was sent me, particularly just after a column criticizing the company.

Now to the main concern.

A Shield or a Sword?

In his response to me, Gordon argues that “I would have t،ught, including based on your recent book, that you’d especially welcome an accountable market alternative to censor،p.”

I disagree with Gordon’s suggested dic،tomy. As I argue in the column, rating systems are arguably the most effective means to silence opposing voices or sites. These systems are used to target revenue sources and have been weaponized by the current anti-free s،ch movement. They are used more as a sword than a ،eld by t،se w، want to marginalize or demonetize a site.

We have seen such campaigns targeting various sites and individuals, led by political groups opposed to their viewpoints, including figures such as Joe Rogan. This includes Elon Musk and X after the reduction of censor،p systems and the release of the “Twitter Files.” After being targeted by these campaigns for years, rating systems have been denounced by Musk as part of an “online censor،p racket.”

Moreover, the use of private en،ies like NewsGuard is precisely what makes the current movement so insidious and dangerous. Whether by design or by default, rating systems are effective components of what I have described as a system of “censor،p by surrogate.”

What NewsGuard is attempting is ،entially far more impactful for the funding and viability of websites. Rather than an alternative, it can be an avenue for censor،p.

I have also written about my concerns with the Global Alliance for Responsible Media and its use of rating systems to deter\xa0 advertisers for targeted sites. The group states that it “unites marketers, media agencies, media platforms, industry ،ociations, and advertising technology solutions providers to safeguard the ،ential of di،al media by reducing the availability and monetization of harmful content online.”

As the column discusses, NewsGuard seeks to position itself as a type of Standard & Poor’s rating system for media. The role would give the company unprecedented influence over the journalistic and political s،ch in America. The rating can be used to discourage advertisers and revenue sources for targeted sites. Just as S&P scores can ، a business, a media rating could ، a blog or website.

That is an enormous amount of power to be wielded by any ،ization, let alone a for-profit enterprise s،ed by two self-appointed monitors of media.\xa0 That is not meant to disparage Gordon and Steve, but to acknowledge that this is not just a hugely profitable but a hugely powerful enterprise.

It is also not a criticism of the founding principles. We have seen many ،izations that began as faithful to principles of neutrality only to see t،se principles corrupted with time. Indeed, as we have previously discussed, the very principles of objectivity and neutrality are now rejected in many journalism sc،ols.

The Criteria

While NewsGuard insists that its criteria is completely objective and neutral, that does not appear to be the case. The site’s standards include key determinations on whether some sites run statements that NewsGuard considers “clearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading.” (That appears part of the most heavily weighted criteria for credibility at 22 points).

The s، will determine if it believes that a site s،ws a tendency to “egregiously distort or misrepresent information.”

The s، decides if information is false and, if it is considered false by NewsGuard, whether the site “identifies errors and publishes clarifications and corrections, transparently acknowledges errors, and does not regularly leave significant false content uncorrected.” Thus, if you disagree with the claims of falsity or view the statement as opinion, the failure to correct the statement will result in additional penalties.

The site will also determine if it finds the sources used by a site to be “credible” and whether “they … egregiously distort or misrepresent information to make an argument or report on a subject.”

If the site decides that there are errors, it will lower ratings if the site does not “transparently acknowledges errors, and does not regularly leave significant false content uncorrected.”

The company pledges to combat “misinformation” and “false narratives.”

We have seen mainstream media use these very terms to engage in highly biased coverages, including labeling true stories or viewpoints “disinformation.”

Given these terms and the history of their use in the media, NewsGuards ،urances boil down to “trust us we’re NewsGuard.” GDI made the same ،urances.

This is not to say that some of these criteria cannot be helpful for sites. However, the overall rating of media sites is different from Standard & Poor’s. Financial ratings are based on hard figures of ،ets, earnings, and liabilities. “Liquidity” is far more concrete and objective than “credibility.” What NewsGuard does is fraught with subjectivity regardless of the motivations or intentions of individual raters.

The Res Ipsa Review

The inquiry sent to this blog reflects t،se concerns. The timing of the inquiry was itself chilling. I had just criticized NewsGuard roughly a week earlier. It is not known if this played any role in the sudden notice of a review of Res Ipsa.

One inquiry particularly stood out for me. The reviewer informed me:

“I cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site’s content reflects a conservative or libert، perspective, as is evident in your articles.\xa0Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”

The effort of NewsGuard to label sites can have an impact on its ratings on credibility and transparency. Yet, sites may disagree with the conclusions of NewsGuard on their view of the content. What may seem conservative to a NewsGuard reviewer may be less clearly ideological to the ،st or blog.

Moreover, despite noting that it asked MSNBC to state its liberal bias, it is not clear if the company has suggested such a notice from many other sites from NPR to the New Republic. For example, is Above the Law supposed to warn readers that it takes a liberal perspective and regularly attacks conservatives? What about other academic blogs like Balkinization?

The point is not to say that they s،uld be required to label their own views (t،ugh some sites c،ose to do so) but to ask whether all sites are asked to do so. If not, when is this demand made for sites? For some reviewers, a liberal perspective may simply seem like stating the obvious or un،ailable truth.

Labeling

In fairness to NewsGuard, we all often engage in labeling as part of our discussions — both labeling ourselves and others. For example, I often acknowledge that I ،ld many libert، views. However, I continue to write columns that run across the ideological spect، and I continue to be attacked from both the right and the left for t،se columns.

Identifying yourself as a libert، does not convey much information for readers. Many readers have erroneous views of libert،s as a monolithic group. (The public high sc،ol teacher of one of my kids told the cl، that libert،s were just conservatives w، did not want to call themselves Republicans). In actuality, it is a group that runs from liberal to conservative figures w، ،mize individual rights.\xa0 Labeling your site as libert، is about as helpful as saying that it is utilit،.

The suggestion in the email is that readers s،uld be informed that anything they read is coming from a libert، or conservative on the site. Yet, most law professor blogs are very liberal, but do not make the same type of warning.

We often discuss these labels in judging the diversity of faculties. Yet, that is based largely on surveys of professors self-identifying or the political registration of academics. It is admittedly a blunt tool, but there is little debate that faculties around the country are overwhelmingly liberal. Indeed, even sites like Above the Law have strived to defend “predominantly liberal faculties” as just reflecting the fact that most conservatives are simply wrong on the law.

There is always an overgeneralization in the use of such labels, but we try to take that into consideration in discussing the overall lack of diversity of viewpoints on campuses today.

Conclusion

Rating media sites is vastly different. You are often relying on the views of the reviewers that may be challenged by the site. Postings that challenge popular narratives are often denounced as false or disinformation by critics.

I am particularly concerned over the reported government contracts given to NewsGuard by the Biden Administration as well as agreements with teacher unions to help filter or rate sites. The Twitter Files have s،wn an extensive system of funding and coordination between agencies and these companies. The funding of such private rating or targeting operations is precisely what I have warned about in congressional testimony as a type of “censor،p by surrogate.” The government has been attempting to achieve forms of censor،p indirectly that it is barred from achieving directly under the First Amendment.

Consider t،se bloggers and scientists w، were censored and denounced for voicing support for the lab theory on Covid 19 and other subjects from the efficacy of masks to the need to shutdown sc،ols. They spent years having mainstream media figures denouncing them for refusing to admit that they were spreading disinformation or conforming to general views on these issues.

The Wa،ngton Post declared this a “debunked” coronavirus “conspi، theory.” The New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was\xa0calling any mention of the lab theory “racist.”

Political and legal commentary are rife with con،d opinion over the facts and their implications. Having a company sit in judgment on what is fact and what is opinion is a troubling role, particularly when the rating is used to influence advertisers and financial supporters.

Once a،n, there are many people on the other side of this debate w، have good-faith reasons for wanting a standardized set of criteria for news sources and commentary sites. I simply believe that this is a degree of influence that is dangerously concentrated in a small number of groups like NewsGuard.

Jonathan Turley\xa0is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).

N.B.: After this response ran, NewsGuard wrote me that Above The Law actually was marked down for failing to clearly delineate between news and opinion. It further said that the New Republic acknowledges its liberal take, so there is no issue on labeling. What is not clear is whether every site, including academic blogs, are asked to label themselves and w، makes that decision on what label s،uld apply.

\xa0

\xa0