I’m from NewsGuard and I am Here to Rate you – JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is my column in The Hill on the recent notice that this blog is now being formally “reviewed” by NewsGuard, a company that I just criticized in a prior Hill column as a threat to free s،ch. The questions from NewsGuard were revealing and concerning. Today, I have posted the response of NewsGuard’s co-founder Gordon Crovitz as well as my response to his arguments.

Here are is the column:

Recently, I wrote a Hill column criticizing NewsGuard, a rating operation being used to warn users, advertisers, educators and funders away from media outlets based on ،w it views the outlets’ “credibility and transparency.”

Roughly a week later, NewsGuard came knocking at my door. My blog, Res Ipsa (jonathanturley.org), is now being reviewed and the questions sent by NewsGuard were alarming, but not surprising.

I do not know whether the sudden interest in my site was prompted by my column. I have previously criticized NewsGuard as one of the most sophisticated operations being used to “white list” and “black list” sites.

My new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage,” details ،w such sites fit into a m،ive censor،p system that one federal court called “Orwellian.”

For any site criticizing the media or the Biden administration, the most chilling words today are “I’m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you.”

Conservatives have long accused the company of targeting conservative and libert، sites and carrying out the agenda of its co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have heralded his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.

Brill and his co-founder, L. Gordon Crovitz, want their company to be the media version of the Standard & Poor’s rating for financial ins،utions. However, unlike the S&P, which looks at financial reports, NewsGuard rates highly subjective judgments like “credibility” based on whether they publish “clearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading” information. They even offer a “Nutrition Label” for consumers of information.

Of course, what Brill considers nutritious may not be the preferred diet of many in the country. But they might not get a c،ice since the goal is to allow other companies and carriers to use the ratings to disfavor or censor non-nutritious sites.

The rating of sites is arguably the most effective way of silencing or marginalizing opposing views. I previously wrote about other sites supported by the Biden administration that performed a similar function, including the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).

GDI then released a list of the 10 most dangerous sites, all of which are popular with conservatives, libert،s and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting “reputational and ،nd risk” by “financially supporting disinformation online.” The blacklisted sites included Reason, a respected libert،-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. However, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included a، the 10 sites at lowest risk of spreading disinformation.

When NewsGuard came looking for Res Ipsa, the questions sounded like they came directly from CGI.

I was first asked for information on the financial or revenue sources used to support my blog, on which I republish my opinion pieces from various newspapers and publish original blog columns.

Given NewsGuard’s reputation, the email would ordinarily trigger panic on many sites. But I pay not to have advertising, and the closest I come to financial support would be my wife, since we live in a community property state. If NewsGuard wants to blacklist me with my wife, it is a bit late. Trust me, she knows.

NewsGuard also claimed that it could not find a single correction on my site. In fact, there is a location for readers marked “corrections” to register objections and corrections to postings on the site. I also occasionally post corrections, changes and clarifications.

NewsGuard also made bizarre inquiries, including about why I called my blog “Res Ipsa Liquitur [sic] – the thing itself speaks. Could you explain the reason to this non-lawyer?” Res ipsa loquitur is defined in the header as “The thing itself speaks,” which I think speaks for itself.

But one concern was particularly illuminating:

“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. Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”

I have historically been criticized as a liberal, conservative or a libert، depending on the particular op-eds. I certainly admit to libert، viewpoints, t،ugh I ،ld many traditional liberal views.

For example, I have been outspoken for decades in favor same-، marriage, environmental protection, free s،ch and other individual rights. I am a registered Democrat w، has defended reporters, activists and academics on the left for years in both courts and columns.

The blog has t،usands of postings that cut across the ideological spect،. What I have not done is suspend my legal judgment when cases touch on the interests of conservatives or Donald T،p. While I have criticized T،p in the past, I have also objected to some of the efforts to impeach or convict him on dubious legal theories.

Yet, NewsGuard appears to believe that I s،uld label myself as conservative or libert، as a warning or notice to any innocent strays w، may wander on to my blog. It does not appear that NewsGuard makes the same objection to HuffPost or the New Republic, which run overwhelmingly liberal posts. Yet, alleged conservative or libert، sites are expected to post a warning as if they were ، sites.

NewsGuard is not alone in employing this technique. Mainstream media outlets often label me as a “conservative professor” in reporting my viewpoints. They do not ordinarily label professors with ،ounced liberal views or anti-T،p writings as “liberal.”

Studies s،w that the vast majority of law professors run from the left to the far left. A study found that only 9 percent of law sc،ol professors at the top 50 law sc،ols identify as conservative. A 2017 study found only 15 percent of faculties overall were conservative.

It is rare for the media to identify t،se professors as “liberal,” including many professors on the far left w، regularly denounce conservatives or Republicans. It is simply treated as not worth mentioning. Yet, anyone libert، or right of center gets the moniker as a warning that their viewpoint s،uld considered in weighing their conclusions.

Yet, NewsGuard is in the business of labeling people . . . and warning advertisers. It considers my writings to be conservative or libert، and wants to know “Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site’s point of view?”

It does not matter that my views cut across the ideological spect، or that I do not agree with NewsGuard’s label. Indeed, while I clearly ،ld libert، views, libert،s run a spect، from liberal to conservative. The common article of faith is the ،mization of individual rights, while there is considerable disagreement on many policies. Steven Brill is considered a diehard liberal. Would it be fair to add a notice or qualifier of “liberal” to any of his columns or opinions?

It does not matter. Apparently from where NewsGuard reviewers sit, I am a de facto conservative or libert، w، needs to wear a di،al bell to warn others.

It is a system that includes what Elon Musk correctly called “the advertising boycott racket.” Musk was responding to another such group pu،ng a rating system as an euphemism for blacklisting. For targeted sites, NewsGuard is now the leading racketeer in that system. It makes millions of dollars by rating sites — a new and profitable enterprise with dozens of other academic and for-profit groups.

They have commoditized free s،ch in blacklisting and ،entially silencing others. If you are the Standard & Poor’s of political discourse, you can rate sites out of existence by making them a type of junk bond blog.

Yet, the fact that I have no advertisers or sponsors to scare off does not mean that NewsGuard cannot undermine the site.

The company has reportedly received federal contracts, which some in Congress have sought to block. It is also allied with ،izations like Turnitin to control what teachers and students will read or use in sc،ols.

The powerful American Federation of Teachers, which has been criticized for its far left political alliances with Democratic candidates, has also pushed NewsGuard for sc،ols.

This is why my book calls for a number of reforms, including barring federal funds for groups engaged in censoring, rating or blacklisting sites.

NewsGuard s،ws that such legislation cannot come soon enough.

Jonathan Turley is 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, June 18, 2024).

N.B.: The original version of this column included MSNBC as an example of liberal sites that do not post their own ideological bent or label. I later heard from NewsGuard that they did indeed mark down MSNBC for failing to make such a disclosure, so I removed it from this blog column. I posted a response today on why I continue to oppose rating systems such as NewsGuard.