This company rates news sites’ credibility. The right-wing wants it stopped

[j brown's body]

"When veteran newsmen L. Gordon Crovitz and Steven Brill started their news site rating company, they were prepared for the inevitable cries of bias from both sides. What they didn’t anticipate was that NewsGuard, their company of about 50 employees, would become the target of congressional investigations and accusations from federal regulators that it was at the vanguard of a vast conspiracy to censor conservative views.

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted. It uses a slate of nine standard criteria, such as whether a site corrects errors or discloses its ownership and financing, to produce a zero to 100 percent rating.

...But conservatives now question the company’s premise. Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, accused the company of facilitating a “censorship cartel,” in a November letter to leading tech platforms. Noting that key legal protections depend on tech executives operating “in good faith,” Carr continued: “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard.”

NewsGuard, backed by legal experts, argues that Carr’s letter may violate the First Amendment by threatening the speech rights of private companies.

“The only attempt to censor going on here is by Brendan Carr,” Crovitz said in an interview."

Gifted link

What a tangled web of repression we weave when the government, under Trump, is going after news organizations for printing what they claim are lies while attacking independent agencies that evaluate disinfirmation.

 

[MamboDervish]

"When veteran newsmen L. Gordon Crovitz and Steven Brill started their news site rating company, they were prepared for the inevitable cries of bias from both sides. What they didn’t anticipate was that NewsGuard, their company of about 50 employees, would become the target of congressional investigations and accusations from federal regulators that it was at the vanguard of a vast conspiracy to censor conservative views.

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted. It uses a slate of nine standard criteria, such as whether a site corrects errors or discloses its ownership and financing, to produce a zero to 100 percent rating.

...But conservatives now question the company’s premise. Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, accused the company of facilitating a “censorship cartel,” in a November letter to leading tech platforms. Noting that key legal protections depend on tech executives operating “in good faith,” Carr continued: “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard.”

NewsGuard, backed by legal experts, argues that Carr’s letter may violate the First Amendment by threatening the speech rights of private companies.

“The only attempt to censor going on here is by Brendan Carr,” Crovitz said in an interview."

Gifted link

What a tangled web of repression we weave when the government, under Trump, is going after news organizations for printing what they claim are lies while attacking independent agencies that evaluate disinfirmation.

As his legal record shows, Donald Trump has been a misogynist, a racist, a scumbag and an unrepentant recidivist criminal fraud for at least the past 50 years. Not enough time, alas, for his cult to catch on.

 

[Phys251]

"When veteran newsmen L. Gordon Crovitz and Steven Brill started their news site rating company, they were prepared for the inevitable cries of bias from both sides. What they didn’t anticipate was that NewsGuard, their company of about 50 employees, would become the target of congressional investigations and accusations from federal regulators that it was at the vanguard of a vast conspiracy to censor conservative views.

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted. It uses a slate of nine standard criteria, such as whether a site corrects errors or discloses its ownership and financing, to produce a zero to 100 percent rating.

...But conservatives now question the company’s premise. Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, accused the company of facilitating a “censorship cartel,” in a November letter to leading tech platforms. Noting that key legal protections depend on tech executives operating “in good faith,” Carr continued: “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard.”

NewsGuard, backed by legal experts, argues that Carr’s letter may violate the First Amendment by threatening the speech rights of private companies.

“The only attempt to censor going on here is by Brendan Carr,” Crovitz said in an interview."

Gifted link

What a tangled web of repression we weave when the government, under Trump, is going after news organizations for printing what they claim are lies while attacking independent agencies that evaluate disinfirmation.

Righties are for freedom of speech, until they aren't.

 

[eohrnberger]

"When veteran newsmen L. Gordon Crovitz and Steven Brill started their news site rating company, they were prepared for the inevitable cries of bias from both sides. What they didn’t anticipate was that NewsGuard, their company of about 50 employees, would become the target of congressional investigations and accusations from federal regulators that it was at the vanguard of a vast conspiracy to censor conservative views.

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted. It uses a slate of nine standard criteria, such as whether a site corrects errors or discloses its ownership and financing, to produce a zero to 100 percent rating.

...But conservatives now question the company’s premise. Brendan Carr, President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Communications Commission, accused the company of facilitating a “censorship cartel,” in a November letter to leading tech platforms. Noting that key legal protections depend on tech executives operating “in good faith,” Carr continued: “It is in this context that I am writing to obtain information about your work with one specific organization — the Orwellian named NewsGuard.”

NewsGuard, backed by legal experts, argues that Carr’s letter may violate the First Amendment by threatening the speech rights of private companies.

“The only attempt to censor going on here is by Brendan Carr,” Crovitz said in an interview."

Gifted link

What a tangled web of repression we weave when the government, under Trump, is going after news organizations for printing what they claim are lies while attacking independent agencies that evaluate disinfirmation.

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows​

Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.​

What they found surprised them. Even the supposedly hard-nosed financial reporters were overwhelmingly liberal. Of the 462 people surveyed, 17.63% called themselves "very liberal," while 40.84% described themselves as "somewhat liberal."​

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows

The media have drifted to the far left on the political spectrum. Yet again, a major study of media bias shows just how far from the center they are.

www.investors.com

The Liberal Media: Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It​

Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found that journalists are more liberal than rest of America. This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalist attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years:​

• Journalists Vote for Liberals: Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.​
• Journalists Say They Are Liberal: Surveys from 1978 to 2004 show that journalists are far more likely to say they are liberal than conservative, and are far more liberal than the public at large.​
• Journalists Reject Conservative Positions: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine.​
• The Public Recognizes the Bias: Since 1985, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias has doubled from 22 percent to 45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal.​

The Liberal Media:Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It

Executive SummaryOver the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an...

www.mrc.org

From your citation:

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted.​

I'm skeptical that "a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted" can accomplish "nonpartisan assessments of online publishers", especially give the above citations which documents journalists' left bias.

 

[eman623]

I hope Newsguard rated this Wapo story as a myth. Personally I never heard of them and have no desire to see them "stopped" (whatever that means).

BTW, The article is behind a paywall.

 

[Rexedgar]

I hope Newsguard rated this Wapo story as a myth. Personally I never heard of them and have no desire to see them "stopped" (whatever that means).

BTW, The article is behind a paywall.

“Gifted link” works for me.

 

[StarvedForChange]

Righties are for freedom of speech, until they aren't.

They're for freedom of speech as long as the speech doesn't point out their many lies, crimes, and demonstrations of their hypocrisy.

 

[eman623]

I found the story here:

Apparently at no time in the story does anyone on the right say they want Newsguard "stopped". It does show this handy graphic.



So the Wapo who ran with the Russian Collusion hoax for 4 years got a perfect 100% score. How nice. For them.

My only question is who rates the credibility of Newsguard? And who rates their credibility? And theirs? We're gonna need a lot more credibility checkers.

 

[DrewPaul]

What a tangled web of repression we weave when the government, under Trump, is going after news organizations for printing what they claim are lies while attacking independent agencies that evaluate disinfirmation.

There might be a good reason for that. Fact checking has been very lopsided.

 

[eohrnberger]

I hope Newsguard rated this Wapo story as a myth. Personally I never heard of them and have no desire to see them "stopped" (whatever that means).

You might be changing your opinion on that.

NewsGuard appears to be part of the Democrat's government supported censorship network which include State's 'Global Engagement Center'.

In 2021, the Department of Defense paid NewsGuard almost $750,000 for a project to track “misinformation fingerprints” on the internet. Another award from the State Department’s “Global Engagement Center” gave NewsGuard $25,000 for access to its website rating system as part of another vaguely elaborated government initiative to combat online “misinformation.” NewsGuard also boasts of its connections to a web of federal agencies in the defense and intelligence sector. Former CIA spy chief Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge sit on its advisory board. The company’s website boasts of similar “partnerships” with the British government to “detect misinformation narratives” and the World Health Organization to fight “online COVID-19 misinformation online” (sic). In these contexts, the ostensibly “private” company begins to look like it’s serving as a paid partner to several high-level government entities supporting their efforts to police online content.​

​

From a constitutional standpoint, that’s a huge red flag. If the federal government launched its own agency to review online content, rate private websites, and pressure tech companies to flag or deboost disliked content, it would likely run afoul of the First Amendment’s free speech protections. But what if the government contracts with the private sector to do some of this dirty work? The Supreme Court has long held that government agencies cannot outsource constitutionally-prohibited activities to private companies.​

Misinformation Watchdog or Taxpayer-Funded Censor? The Government's Role in NewsGuard’s Operations Raises Constitutional Questions | Phillip W. Magness

Incoming FCC commissioner Brendan Carr recently announced his intentions to investigate NewsGuard. This company publishes “misinformation” ratings of websites based on a scoring system from its self-described “fact checkers.” NewsGuard’s most distinctive feature comes from its integrated browser...

blog.independent.org

Further:

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer sent a letter to Newsguard requesting communications between the news rating website and government entities, including the Department of Defense (DOD). This is part of an investigation into “the impact of NewsGuard on protected First Amendment speech and its potential to serve as a nontransparent agent of censorship campaigns.”​

The letter adds, “Our investigation has particularly focused on abuse of government authority to censor American citizens under the guise of protecting them from so-called misinformation. The protection of First Amendment rights of American citizens is paramount, and attempts by government actors to infringe on those rights is dangerous and misguided.”​

The letter continues by referring to statements made by former Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. At the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings organized by the World Economic Forum, Kerry said, “…our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just … hammer it out of existence.” Kerry was referring to mis and disinformation.​

House Oversight Investigates Newsguard's Government Contracts and Censorship Allegations - The HighWire

House Oversight probes Newsguard's government ties and possible censorship role, requesting documents on its work with federal agencies.

thehighwire.com

BTW, The article is behind a paywall.

 

[eohrnberger]

I found the story here:

Apparently at no time in the story does anyone on the right say they want Newsguard "stopped". It does show this handy graphic.

View attachment 67548382

So the Wapo who ran with the Russian Collusion hoax for 4 years got a perfect 100% score. How nice. For them.

My only question is who rates the credibility of Newsguard? And who rates their credibility? And theirs? We're gonna need a lot more credibility checkers.

Given the above, and given my post above, neither NewsGuard nor Global Engagement Center have any credibility in judging 'misinformation'.

Further, appears that their activities are all related to censoring American citizens under the guise of protecting them from so-called misinformation.

Guess what? American citizens don't need 'protection' from misinformation have already sniffed out and spotted misinformation, and it's the Dem's MSM propagandists.

 

[Juin]

I found the story here:

Apparently at no time in the story does anyone on the right say they want Newsguard "stopped". It does show this handy graphic.

I cannot for the life of me figure why anyone would want them stopped.

View attachment 67548382

So the Wapo who ran with the Russian Collusion hoax for 4 years got a perfect 100% score. How nice. For them.

My only question is who rates the credibility of Newsguard? And who rates their credibility? And theirs? We're gonna need a lot more credibility checkers.

Wapo scores a perfect 100%.

 

[eman623]

You might be changing your opinion on that.

NewsGuard appears to be part of the Democrat's government supported censorship network which include State's 'Global Engagement Center'.

In 2021, the Department of Defense paid NewsGuard almost $750,000 for a project to track “misinformation fingerprints” on the internet. Another award from the State Department’s “Global Engagement Center” gave NewsGuard $25,000 for access to its website rating system as part of another vaguely elaborated government initiative to combat online “misinformation.” NewsGuard also boasts of its connections to a web of federal agencies in the defense and intelligence sector. Former CIA spy chief Michael Hayden and former Homeland Security secretary Tom Ridge sit on its advisory board. The company’s website boasts of similar “partnerships” with the British government to “detect misinformation narratives” and the World Health Organization to fight “online COVID-19 misinformation online” (sic). In these contexts, the ostensibly “private” company begins to look like it’s serving as a paid partner to several high-level government entities supporting their efforts to police online content.​

​

From a constitutional standpoint, that’s a huge red flag. If the federal government launched its own agency to review online content, rate private websites, and pressure tech companies to flag or deboost disliked content, it would likely run afoul of the First Amendment’s free speech protections. But what if the government contracts with the private sector to do some of this dirty work? The Supreme Court has long held that government agencies cannot outsource constitutionally-prohibited activities to private companies.​

Misinformation Watchdog or Taxpayer-Funded Censor? The Government's Role in NewsGuard’s Operations Raises Constitutional Questions | Phillip W. Magness

Incoming FCC commissioner Brendan Carr recently announced his intentions to investigate NewsGuard. This company publishes “misinformation” ratings of websites based on a scoring system from its self-described “fact checkers.” NewsGuard’s most distinctive feature comes from its integrated browser...

blog.independent.org

Further:

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer sent a letter to Newsguard requesting communications between the news rating website and government entities, including the Department of Defense (DOD). This is part of an investigation into “the impact of NewsGuard on protected First Amendment speech and its potential to serve as a nontransparent agent of censorship campaigns.”​

The letter adds, “Our investigation has particularly focused on abuse of government authority to censor American citizens under the guise of protecting them from so-called misinformation. The protection of First Amendment rights of American citizens is paramount, and attempts by government actors to infringe on those rights is dangerous and misguided.”​

The letter continues by referring to statements made by former Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry. At the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings organized by the World Economic Forum, Kerry said, “…our First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just … hammer it out of existence.” Kerry was referring to mis and disinformation.​

House Oversight Investigates Newsguard's Government Contracts and Censorship Allegations - The HighWire

House Oversight probes Newsguard's government ties and possible censorship role, requesting documents on its work with federal agencies.

thehighwire.com

Well, I certainly want the government contracts stopped. No way they should get taxpayer funds even if they were 100% legitimate and fair. The same goes with any outsourcing censorship communications between the government and these assholes.

But to shut them down? Nah. Go ahead and post your fake credibility rating lies, Newsguard. No one cares what you say anyway.

 

[eman623]

“Gifted link” works for me.

I stand corrected.

Apparently If I create an account I can read this. Hard pass.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I found the story here:

Apparently at no time in the story does anyone on the right say they want Newsguard "stopped". It does show this handy graphic.

View attachment 67548382

So the Wapo who ran with the Russian Collusion hoax for 4 years got a perfect 100% score. How nice. For them.

It wasn't a hoax. This is babbling reich-wing bullshit.

The Russians meddled in the election; Trump benefited. Accept it and move on.

My only question is who rates the credibility of Newsguard? And who rates their credibility? And theirs? We're gonna need a lot more credibility checkers.

Their credibility is far above that of all reich-wing propaganda sources.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Given the above, and given my post above, neither NewsGuard nor Global Engagement Center have any credibility in judging 'misinformation'.

Further, appears that their activities are all related to censoring American citizens under the guise of protecting them from so-called misinformation.

Guess what? American citizens don't need 'protection' from misinformation have already sniffed out and spotted misinformation, and it's the Dem's MSM propagandists.

That's one way to look at it, but the truth of the matter is most people do and mainly because deliberate misinformation can lead to pretty bad consequences. Looking at this globally, there's been a wide variety of misinformation campaigns on various social media sites that have led to violence and people being killed. I think the real question is about how government handles it, which is either proactively and reactively. This country tends to lean reactively and mainly for the preservation of free speech rights.

Whether reactive or proactive, both carry consequences. I think the bigger concern here is around state actors using social media to spread misinformation as a way to create chaos, and that should be an area the government still has a hand in preventing. What's clear is information travels far more quickly and in a much broader way than it ever did before. That can be used to cause chaos, and to not acknowledge that is pretty silly since it leaves a gapping security gap.

 

[trouble13]

Righties are for freedom of speech, until they aren't.

Fraud is not considered protected speak. If this organization is intentionally misleading people, they are committing fraud. If the gov believes that is what is happening, they have an obligation to present their evidence.

 

[CANON]

I found the story here:

Apparently at no time in the story does anyone on the right say they want Newsguard "stopped". It does show this handy graphic.

View attachment 67548382

So the Wapo who ran with the Russian Collusion hoax for 4 years got a perfect 100% score. How nice. For them.

My only question is who rates the credibility of Newsguard? And who rates their credibility? And theirs? We're gonna need a lot more credibility checkers.

This doesn't sound like someone that wants NewsGuard stopped?

(from that WAPO article)

Carr’s letter last month accused the tech executives of participating in “a censorship cartel that included not only technology and social media companies but advertising, marketing, and so-called ‘fact-checking’ organizations as well as the Biden-Harris Administration itself.” In mentioning that the tech industry’s prized liability shield, Section 230, only applies when they operate “in good faith,” Carr suggested that working with NewsGuard might be putting that protection at risk.

How much does the behavior of the more recent popular 'conservatives' have to do with people calling themselves Independent instead of Republican or a conservative? MAGA is not conservative, and it's understandable why an actual conservative would want to disassociate from a group that is being led by MAGA values.

 

[trouble13]

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows​

Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.​

What they found surprised them. Even the supposedly hard-nosed financial reporters were overwhelmingly liberal. Of the 462 people surveyed, 17.63% called themselves "very liberal," while 40.84% described themselves as "somewhat liberal."​

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows

The media have drifted to the far left on the political spectrum. Yet again, a major study of media bias shows just how far from the center they are.

www.investors.com

The Liberal Media: Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It​

​

Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found that journalists are more liberal than rest of America. This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalist attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years:​

• Journalists Vote for Liberals: Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.​
• Journalists Say They Are Liberal: Surveys from 1978 to 2004 show that journalists are far more likely to say they are liberal than conservative, and are far more liberal than the public at large.​
• Journalists Reject Conservative Positions: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine.​
• The Public Recognizes the Bias: Since 1985, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias has doubled from 22 percent to 45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal.​

The Liberal Media:Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It

Executive SummaryOver the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an...

www.mrc.org

From your citation:

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted.​

I'm skeptical that "a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted" can accomplish "nonpartisan assessments of online publishers", especially give the above citations which documents journalists' left bias.

While I share your skepticism, the question isn't really what ideological beliefs they favor as much as it is if they use deceptive practices to promote those beliefs. If the gov thinks they do they need to outline what their evidence is and make a case for it.

 

[trouble13]

They're for freedom of speech as long as the speech doesn't point out their many lies, crimes, and demonstrations of their hypocrisy.

That sounds familiar

 

[eohrnberger]

Well, I certainly want the government contracts stopped. No way they should get taxpayer funds even if they were 100% legitimate and fair. The same goes with any outsourcing censorship communications between the government and these assholes.

Agreed. The US federal government should in no way, shape or form, be in the business of, nor supporting, censorship of US citizens, be it directly or by out sourcing, as per constitutional dictate.
The US federal government out sourcing censorship efforts only makes those censorship outfits 'State Actors' who are then required to comply by the same restrictions as the US federal government.

But to shut them down? Nah. Go ahead and post your fake credibility rating lies, Newsguard. No one cares what you say anyway.

Also agreed. They have a right to publish whatever they want, just the US federal government can't be connected to it in any way, as per constitutional dictate.

 

[j brown's body]

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows​

Researchers from Arizona State University and Texas A&M University questioned 462 financial journalists around the country. They followed up with 18 additional interviews. The journalists worked for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and a number of other newspapers.​

What they found surprised them. Even the supposedly hard-nosed financial reporters were overwhelmingly liberal. Of the 462 people surveyed, 17.63% called themselves "very liberal," while 40.84% described themselves as "somewhat liberal."​

Media Bias: Pretty Much All Of Journalism Now Leans Left, Study Shows

The media have drifted to the far left on the political spectrum. Yet again, a major study of media bias shows just how far from the center they are.

www.investors.com

The Liberal Media: Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It​

​

Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found that journalists are more liberal than rest of America. This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalist attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years:​

• Journalists Vote for Liberals: Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.​
• Journalists Say They Are Liberal: Surveys from 1978 to 2004 show that journalists are far more likely to say they are liberal than conservative, and are far more liberal than the public at large.​
• Journalists Reject Conservative Positions: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine.​
• The Public Recognizes the Bias: Since 1985, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias has doubled from 22 percent to 45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal.​

The Liberal Media:Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It

Executive SummaryOver the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an...

www.mrc.org

From your citation:

Since 2018, NewsGuard has built a business offering advertisers nonpartisan assessments of online publishers — backed by a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted.​

I'm skeptical that "a team of journalists who assess which sites are reputable and which can’t be trusted" can accomplish "nonpartisan assessments of online publishers", especially give the above citations which documents journalists' left bias.

They should be silenced because your strawman argument that makes you skeptical?

The criteria they use is defined. If anyone has a problem with it, they should say why.

One of the owners is Gordon Crovitz, a former publisher of the Wall Street Journal and a Republican.

 

[eohrnberger]

That's one way to look at it, but the truth of the matter is most people do and mainly because deliberate misinformation can lead to pretty bad consequences.

I'm skeptical about your 'most people do' assertion, and further, I don't believe the US federal government has any obligation, responsibility, nor business being involved in any of it.

You wonder what happened to Biden and his Administrative State's 'Disinformation Governance Board' when it was dissolved? See my previous post.
Appears that some of it was hidden within State's Global Engagement Center, which, now defunded, has already stated in court filings that they were moving "the Global Engagement Center's staff and funding to other bureaus aimed at fighting foreign disinformation."

In the filing, attorneys for the State Department said the agency told lawmakers on Friday of its plan to move the Global Engagement Center's staff and funding to other bureaus aimed at fighting foreign disinformation. The filing was made public as part of a lawsuit brought by conservative media outlets against the State Department over its funding of the Global Disinformation Index, a fact first reported by the Washington Examiner in 2023 that sparked congressional oversight and a flurry of lawsuits.​

State Department notifies Congress of plans to shutter ‘censorship’ agency

The State Department sent a notification to Congress that it plans to terminate an agency accused of censoring conservatives after losing support from lawmakers, according to a court filing and

denvergazette.com

Looking at this globally, there's been a wide variety of misinformation campaigns on various social media sites that have led to violence and people being killed. I think the real question is about how government handles it, which is either proactively and reactively. This country tends to lean reactively and mainly for the preservation of free speech rights.

Offshore, possibly. On shore, most certainly not.
Why does GEC have all these paper trails which lead to liberal / leftist organizations which work toward censoring conservative voices within the US?
This doesn't align with their supposed 'global' claim (reference post #90, #10, #103, #115, and #23 in other threads.

Whether reactive or proactive, both carry consequences. I think the bigger concern here is around state actors using social media to spread misinformation as a way to create chaos, and that should be an area the government still has a hand in preventing. What's clear is information travels far more quickly and in a much broader way than it ever did before. That can be used to cause chaos, and to not acknowledge that is pretty silly since it leaves a gapping security gap.

I guess you have self-identified as pro-censorship of US citizens who have conservative positions and / or opinions. Why am I not surprised?

 

[j brown's body]

I'm skeptical about your 'most people do' assertion, and further, I don't believe the US federal government has any obligation, responsibility, nor business being involved in any of it.

You wonder what happened to Biden and his Administrative State's 'Disinformation Governance Board' when it was dissolved? See my previous post.
Appears that some of it was hidden within State's Global Engagement Center, which, now defunded, has already stated in court filings that they were moving "the Global Engagement Center's staff and funding to other bureaus aimed at fighting foreign disinformation."

In the filing, attorneys for the State Department said the agency told lawmakers on Friday of its plan to move the Global Engagement Center's staff and funding to other bureaus aimed at fighting foreign disinformation. The filing was made public as part of a lawsuit brought by conservative media outlets against the State Department over its funding of the Global Disinformation Index, a fact first reported by the Washington Examiner in 2023 that sparked congressional oversight and a flurry of lawsuits.​

State Department notifies Congress of plans to shutter ‘censorship’ agency

The State Department sent a notification to Congress that it plans to terminate an agency accused of censoring conservatives after losing support from lawmakers, according to a court filing and

denvergazette.com

Offshore, possibly. On shore, most certainly not.
Why does GEC have all these paper trails which lead to liberal / leftist organizations which work toward censoring conservative voices within the US?
This doesn't align with their supposed 'global' claim (reference post #90, #10, #103, #115, and #23 in other threads.


I guess you have self-identified as pro-censorship of US citizens who have conservative positions and / or opinions. Why am I not surprised?

Would you support a government effort to intimidate sources of information it doesn't like?

 

[StarvedForChange]

That sounds familiar

Ah! Then you must watch a lot of MAGA media! In that event you would be!