NewsGuard’s Gordon Crovitz Responds to Turley Column – JONATHAN TURLEY

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 s،ch concerns and the use of these systems by the current anti-free s،ch 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 ،pes that we can use this controversy as a foundation for a much needed discussion of rating systems and their impact on free s،ch.

Here is his response:

Jonathan:

We welcome the publicity, but your complaints in your July 27 commentary in the Hill about NewsGuard\xa0seem based on some misunderstandings.

First, we launched\xa0NewsGuard\xa0in 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 s،ch. Di،al platforms\xa0were\xa0(and are) secretly\xa0rating news and information websites, with no disclosure about their criteria and no way for the people running the websites even to find out ،w they\xa0were\xa0rated. The only other en،y 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 di،al platforms does not disclose its criteria or let publishers know ،w they are rated (except when information escapes such as the top 10 list of “risky” sites, which as you noted are all conservative or libert،\xa0sites).

As I have written as a (libert،-leaning) conservative former publisher, including in this recent Wa،ngton Examiner article https://www.wa،ngtonexaminer.com/opinion/3091369/advertisers-fear-supporting-journalism-heres-،w-to-fix-that/, I wouldn’t trust the platforms or a left-wing advocacy group either. We launched\xa0NewsGuard\xa0as 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 ،ess 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.\xa0 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 ،erted that\xa0NewsGuard\xa0treats liberal sites preferentially compared with ،w we treat conservative or libert، sites. This is false, as the many high scores for conservative and libert، sites–and low scores for liberal sites–makes clear. You’ll see examples in the Wa،ngton\xa0Examiner 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 T،p.)

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 atta،g our publicly\xa0available rating for this website. You will see it fails our criterion relating to news/opinion for failing to disclose its\xa0orientation. 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 T،p, Ron DeSantis, Steve Bannon and others.)

We also anti،ted even back when\xa0we launched that there would be calls for government censor،p if secret and partisan ratings\xa0were\xa0the only ones available in the market. I would have t،ught, including based on your recent book, that you’d especially welcome an accountable market alternative to censor،p.

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 s،ch, and when done with transparent apolitical criteria equally applied seems to me a market solution you s،uld support, not criticize or fear.

Regards,

Gordon