Newsguard (News Site Rating System) (1 Viewer)

NOLADatLSU

Practice Squad
Joined
Sep 26, 2016
Messages
16
Reaction score
24
Offline
Recently, a Google Chrome/Microsoft Edge extension gauging the veracity of news sites rolled out. I downloaded it today and have been giving it a test drive. It gives a quickly-recognizable Good/Bad/Satire/Rating-In-Progress rating in the Chrome bar, and if you click on it you can go more in-depth to why the site was rated that way. It is based on facts, ownership transparency, and conflict of interest potential, and a few other metrics. Then you can go even further and read a page of information about the source, which they call a "nutrition label".

So far I've seen a lot of fretting based on their board of directors, which have some establishment figures from both sides of the aisle. Others think it's a little too "Big Brother"-ish, even though I don't believe it is affiliated with the government in any way other than having past political figures on their board.

One thing I like is that a board of journalists create the ratings rather than an algorithm. And it seems they actually contact the news source before doing a final ranking to talk it out and give a pathway to improvement.

https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/
 

mt15

Subscribing Member
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Subscribing Member
Platinum VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
12,382
Reaction score
16,403
Offline
This one statement sort of turns me off of this rating system:

“The Daily Caller, for one, passes NewsGuard's test, despite losing points for deceptive headlines, failing to disclose its financing, and failing to separate news and opinion responsibly.”

How in holy hell do you green light a site who does those things?
 

N.O.Bronco

Super Forum Fanatic
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
9,201
Reaction score
7,265
Offline
This one statement sort of turns me off of this rating system:

“The Daily Caller, for one, passes NewsGuard's test, despite losing points for deceptive headlines, failing to disclose its financing, and failing to separate news and opinion responsibly.”

How in holy hell do you green light a site who does those things?
My guess, when you are desperately trying to both sides an issue that is anything but and bending over backwards to avoid the appearance of partisanship as opposed to just sticking to a set of standards and letting the chips fall where they may.

Any system that is ranking Propublica on the same plane as Fox News and The Daily Caller is immediately critically flawed.

And it’s a shame because this implemented properly is much needed, and I typically respect Steven Brill, even though I don’t always agree with him, but his book on American healthcare pricing is one of the quintessential must reads to understanding the structural problems in America’s healthcare system.
 

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
40,893
Reaction score
33,429
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
This one statement sort of turns me off of this rating system:

“The Daily Caller, for one, passes NewsGuard's test, despite losing points for deceptive headlines, failing to disclose its financing, and failing to separate news and opinion responsibly.”

How in holy hell do you green light a site who does those things?
Clearly the bar is set low.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,511
Reaction score
17,106
Online
Recently, a Google Chrome/Microsoft Edge extension gauging the veracity of news sites rolled out. I downloaded it today and have been giving it a test drive. It gives a quickly-recognizable Good/Bad/Satire/Rating-In-Progress rating in the Chrome bar, and if you click on it you can go more in-depth to why the site was rated that way. It is based on facts, ownership transparency, and conflict of interest potential, and a few other metrics. Then you can go even further and read a page of information about the source, which they call a "nutrition label".

So far I've seen a lot of fretting based on their board of directors, which have some establishment figures from both sides of the aisle. Others think it's a little too "Big Brother"-ish, even though I don't believe it is affiliated with the government in any way other than having past political figures on their board.

One thing I like is that a board of journalists create the ratings rather than an algorithm. And it seems they actually contact the news source before doing a final ranking to talk it out and give a pathway to improvement.

https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/
A board of "journalists"?

Biased humans?

Skip this. Will be as subjective and susceptible to bias as anything else. Who's going be signing their paychecks?

News and information is like anything else. Caveat emptor. Think.

Personally, default skepticism followed by cross referencing works to filter out junk. In the real world sometimes there is a gray space that no one likes but I accept that.

Of course, I get that the vast majority of the herd will run with whatever confirms their own bias and not ask questions or fact check. Too much work.

But Newsguard will have the same bias of its own, and the same as the corporate media it is trying to protect. Had Newsguard existed in 2002 would have told you that stories that Iraq has WMD and that Saddam did 9-11 were A+ to 10/10 in trustworthiness.

This would have been another green light in credibility because it was on NBC:

 
Last edited:

MLU

Tigers vs All Y'all
Joined
Apr 28, 1999
Messages
52,488
Reaction score
16,616
Location
Mesa, AZ
Offline
Recently, a Google Chrome/Microsoft Edge extension gauging the veracity of news sites rolled out. I downloaded it today and have been giving it a test drive. It gives a quickly-recognizable Good/Bad/Satire/Rating-In-Progress rating in the Chrome bar, and if you click on it you can go more in-depth to why the site was rated that way. It is based on facts, ownership transparency, and conflict of interest potential, and a few other metrics. Then you can go even further and read a page of information about the source, which they call a "nutrition label".

So far I've seen a lot of fretting based on their board of directors, which have some establishment figures from both sides of the aisle. Others think it's a little too "Big Brother"-ish, even though I don't believe it is affiliated with the government in any way other than having past political figures on their board.

One thing I like is that a board of journalists create the ratings rather than an algorithm. And it seems they actually contact the news source before doing a final ranking to talk it out and give a pathway to improvement.

https://www.wired.com/story/newsguard-extension-fake-news-trust-score/
It's pretty sad that someone feels this is necessary...
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,511
Reaction score
17,106
Online
It's pretty sad that someone feels this is necessary...
Just follow the money, look at the organizers...

The people that feel this is necessary are the traditional corporate media outlets who used to be able to set a narrative on dubious "facts" and drive the narrative without question. The narratives are now disrupted as people connect and directly discuss and question, and smaller/cheaper outlets and bloggers can publish their own "editorials" and get comparable engagement.

It's just another move to try to get that power to control narrative back to the big media companies.

Those represented by Newsguard are the middlemen getting cut out.
 
Last edited:

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,511
Reaction score
17,106
Online
This one statement sort of turns me off of this rating system:

“The Daily Caller, for one, passes NewsGuard's test, despite losing points for deceptive headlines, failing to disclose its financing, and failing to separate news and opinion responsibly.”

How in holy hell do you green light a site who does those things?
All of this is subjective and as open to manipulation as anything.

The New York Times, WashPost, CNN, Fox, MSNBC all use deceptive headlines and spin. It's a way of life.

The media is all about selective use of fact and context to fit a desired narrative to relieve us all from thinking any further. They traditionally decide what fact and context get included, ignored or downplayed, what history goes down the memory hole.

What they don't like is that computers and the Internet and the low cost of entry now allow any of us to become "journalists" and comment or use common sense and logic to de-construct the narratives, and anyone can go viral and undermine the narratives all these outlets spend billions to establish and maintain.

We are at a point in history not unlike when the printing press came into general use.
 
Last edited:

Saint_Ward

The Great Eye is ever Watchful
Staff member
Administrator
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
40,893
Reaction score
33,429
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Offline
I don't think this app is going to go after the brietbarts, occupy Democrats of the world.

I dont think they're going to alert to bias much, more the actual fake websites reporting on news that didn't actually happen at all.

Like fake terror attacks, fake deaths, fake accidents.

Political news is too opinion and prediction based, so ranking it is difficult. Just realize most political news is opinion.

Anyway... game time.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom