I was with you until reading that Fox News is green-lighted. I wish writers, not the organization for which they work, were labeled as journalists or opinion writers in big bold titles. In my opinion, no one at Fox is in the former category of having journalistic integrity and independence.
34
I like this model for watchdogging. Too much confidence has been placed on mass appeal and public opinion and I feel a lot better knowing journalism professionals are coordinating the ratings here.
13
FOX gets a green, well then forget about it
8
It sounds like a valiant effort to educate the news-illiterate American public, but when foxnews.com gets the stamp of approval, the product is already suspect
5
Newsguard is a grand idea, and certainly warrated by these times of partisan divide where simple truths and facts are co-opted, embellished, or denied out right. The sheer horrror of a president that has told thousands of lies and Russian trolls fomenting dissent and dividing citizens is a consistent cognitive dissonance that begs realism. Russian propaganda: "We faced a surprise attack by a foreign actor – a new version of an old threat that we, the tech sector, and many in the US government never saw coming." siad Sheryl Sandberg.
Freedom of speech, is also freedom to lie, exaggerate, and color events to favor a decided outcome or bias.
The truth is out there, and I am comforted by a free press that refuses to compromise integrity. I suggest folks read the Newsguard Criteria to clarify its standards. They are good practices to apply daily.
https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/criteria-for-and-explanation-of-ratings/
Another good intention – another paving block on that famous road. To be more generous: another good idea that needs a lot more work. I don't think any of us can expect any news source to be free from bias, but the way facts are spun can have a definite effect on the reader/viewer. Consider these two headlines:
"Trump challenges Democrats on border security."
"Trump shuts down government over demands for wall."
Both are factually correct, but each conveys a different subtext. We can guess from the headline how the article will be spun. Both sources would probably rate a green check.
If we are to have a rating system that can only depend on accuracy, it will probably save us from Elvis sightings or Pizzagate type theories, but I don't think that people who were influenced by that level of reporting will be paying too much attention to the source's rating.
An unintended consequence of this type of rating is that it will give more credibility to sources that may be factually correct, but contextually dishonest. Witness the outrage by commenters that Fox news was given a green light. Witness the comments complaining that the NYT is undeserving because it didn't cover something they felt important. We've all seen people complaining because NYT did cover something they didn't want to see, or included more than one perspective.
I foresee more difficulties arising from this approach than better assessment of news sources.
3
@michaeltide
Well, one has to start somewhere. We can hardly expect a first attempt to spring, Minerva-like, full-grown from the brow of Zeus. I would think that ultimately the payoff would be when individual news consumers apply reasonable standards of credibility to what they watch/hear/read rather than depending on a service to do it for them. But people are lazy, aren't we?
@RBT, ah...if only. What is more likely is that a competitive rating service will arise like a foam-born Aphrodite, ostensibly to give a more objective rating, rather like the stock market, where several different rating services will advise you to buy, hold or sell. They are not always in agreement, None of them are actually wrong, but none of them are uniformly right. I think we're probably in agreement that there's no substitute for discernment.
1
@michaeltide Well said and thank you for the elucidation. Ultimately only a Pinnochio effect could completely win the day. "...it will probably save us from Elvis sightings or Pizzagate type theories, but I don't think that people who were influenced by that level of reporting will be paying too much attention to the source's rating. " Oh i quite agree, doubly so, but the scrutiny by Newsguard may compel some publications to behave more credibly.
1
It’s a start. I am mostly hopeful that this site can differentiate “opinion shows” are just that: opinions and not news. It seems people like Limbaugh, Hannity and Maddow
are where people seem to be getting their most entrenched views regardless of what is true.
7
@Hugh Jorgen Rachel Maddow may indeed opine betimes, but at the very least her opinions are based in naked facts.
3
Great idea, but now we need another group to determine what percentage of news from these sites actively supports one party over another in their news coverage, thus making them a political organization instead of a news organization, being then subject to all political organization laws and regulations.
2
@Bill Kaetzel, before judging NewsGuard by this article alone, you should take a look at their website. Specifically their advisory board. It is comprised of some well known people from the left and the right.
I believe they are trying hard to be as objective and unbiased as possible. You can also see the backgrounds of every one of their analysts and every write up shows who worked on it.
I've used it for several months now and find it extremely helpful, especially with facebook. (And they do not collect any personal information.) Try it.
4
It's a great effort and I support it, but I'd be concerned at how fast will this get politicized, given the majority of green lights are either mainstream or considered liberal publications. Also: Is it trying to solve the wrong problem? People want to see their biases confirmed, and with online tech giants profiting from clicks (not balanced content) this problem is incredibly hard to solve. So I consider it another trustworthy site verifying other trustworthy sites.
2
Fake is the sole purpose of social media.
3
Part of the problem is birthed in bias from major news organisations. When readers recognize bias from a supposed trusted news source, it undercuts the news sources' credibility in the reader's perception across the board, while readers agreeing with the bias are often none the wiser and criticize the skeptical non-believers. The NYTimes coverage of the Sanders Clinton primary is an excellent example of how a major, trusted news source weakened it's own credibility with a segment of readers. Just because this third party org, NewsGuard, rates an media source as credible does not in fact mean the disenfranchised will believe. In fact, with a simplistic green/red binary rating system, NewsGuard may in fact only serve to further disenfranchise the disgruntled as it is one more arbitrary tool believers will use to mock the disgruntled for not believing.
2
A major source of “fake news” are omissions. Too many times stories that don’t fit the narrative simply are not reported. Hopefully these people are smart enough to work flagrant omissions into there rating algorithm.
6
I am a Canadian and know NewsGuard will not step up to the plate to explain how far we are from the USA in our ethics and values.
I grew up loving America and truth is as much what we don't say as what we say.
John Ralston Saul Canadian historian, writer, and public intellectual was two term head of PEN International was the first North American to head since Arthur Miller. Our publicly owned media is the greatest defender of our freedom as it has absolute freedom to monitor our government. A free press is one that is responsible to all our citizens and just like our government it is the property of we the people.
Our government is not left, right or center it belongs to Canadians and we decide its direction at the ballot box.
7
Rule #1: Avoid Facebook and other social media sites as your news feed.
Rule #2: Mainstream media outlets can have very good news coverage and very biased op-ed sections. Wall Street Journal is a good example. Read accordingly.
Rule #3: Websites, apps, browsers and operating systems are designed to watch you as you read, listen to or watch content, and then sell that info to advertisers. You have some limited ability to control this but it has become more cumbersome.
Rule #4: News is a product and virtually all news is biased in different ways to get you to read, listen or watch. See #3 above.
Rule #5: In an effort to appear balanced, media outlets sometimes give time to very misleading commentators without a follow up challenge. I call this the PBS Syndrome.
CNN addresses this by flanking a controversial commentator with 3 others of different perspectives.
Rule #6: See Rule #1. Facebook is for pictures of friends, pets, grandkids and vacations. Leave it at that.
36
@Look Ahead
Rule# 2 should include NY Times as well.
I will add in many cases, opinion creeps outside the op-ed page.
5
@Look Ahead. Hey, the bit about FB is what I always write. It’s not called “social media” and not “news media” randomly!
1
Here’s hoping people want objective news. I’m afraid people often just want to have their prejudices confirmed.
23
Outstanding step forward. Combine this with HB-1 and we will be "making American sane again".
9
I think the American public want to have objective criteria. This is generally understood as 'bias' in academic journals on psychology and journalism. The term 'bias' never appears in NewsGaurd's 9 criteria, or in this article.
In their "Criteria for and Explanations of Ratings", NewsGuard has merely created a new 'meta'-level of bias (defined by them) through the use of the following subjective terms:
'fake content'
'responsibly'
'clarifies errors'
'avoids'
'conflicts of interest'
Bias can sometimes be articulated by understanding the intent of a media image (e.g. an article or photograph). Intent can be judged from the perspective of the actor(s) who were involved in the image source: those who instigated, adapted or captioned the work; those who produced (copied or published) the image; those who paid for its design or production; those who agreed to appear in it; and those who authorized its release (copyright or ownership of physical/original works). Intent is also equivalent to intended use, although a new use for an old image can emerge over time.
1
"The service, free to readers..."
Translation: the readers are the product, and the real customers are advertisers and whomever else who buys the data they will gather on users.
11
So, Pat, do you propose to pay for the service directly? Face it, when you get something at no direct cost from a privately-owned supplier, that supplier is entitled to try to gain something of value (legally) in exchange. That is how capitalism works.
I suscribed to Brill's Content and enjoyed it.
Don't really see how Fox news doesn't at least get a yellow light.
30
Newsguard doesn't have a yellow light feature, unfortunately. I've been using it for a few months now. I don't like it, actually - it's just not that good. While it claims to keep a weighted scorecard for its features, you don't get to see the actual scores, even when Newsguard explains that some features and criteria are more important that others. Also, the threshold for a "red" ranking isn't that high: 22 out of a possible 60 points. There's an explanation in there that also says that all green-rated news sources aren't equal in quality, which isn't helpful for discerning actual good-quality news sources from so-so sources. The "nutrition facts" don't really explain why you should care about the criteria they set until about three or four screens down per item, basically obscuring this data from all but the most intrepid or curious users. It's simply not ready for rollout. There's other programs like it (CivicOwl, which I've used, and Trusted News, which I haven't), but so far, I'm not seeing anything I like.
4
@Dan Already chasing the mythical "balance," I guess.
@Dan: I loved Brill's Content. Brill was also the founder of Court TV.
1
Wow. What a concept. Slight cynicism aside, I really do think we need these type of efforts and they need to be taken on by people with experience, knowledge, and solid moral compasses.
I look forward to one day having no ads as I continue to support the NYT, and seeing NYT at the top of lists indicating accuracy, integrity, and honest-to-goodness care for their customers.
Such as myself.
5
@John Marno if you read a variety of sources, you will soon see the NYT often fails to report stories that are “unflattering” to its agenda.
4