Meet NewsGuard: The Government-Backed Censorship Tool Billed As An Arbiter Of Truth
In May 2021, L. Gordon Crovitz, a media executive turned start-up investor, presented Twitter executives with an intriguing proposal.
Recently revealed in the “Twitter Files” expose on media censorship, Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, pitched his product, NewsGuard, as a “Vaccine Against Misinformation.” He emphasized a separate tool, in addition to the existing Microsoft Edge browser extension, specifically designed for content moderation teams. Crovitz promised an out-of-the-box solution that would utilize artificial intelligence and NewsGuard algorithms to quickly evaluate content based on hashtags and search terms associated with harmful information.
Read NewsGuard’s email and RealClearInvestigations’ response about RCI’s reporting here.
But how would the company determine what is true? For topics like Covid-19, NewsGuard would only direct readers to official government sources, such as the federal Centers for Disease Control. Crovitz’s pitch also mentioned other allies in content moderation, including intelligence and national security officials, reputation management providers, and government agencies. NewsGuard aimed to rate the overall reliability of websites and preemptively debunk Covid-19 misinformation from popular sites, rather than just fact-checking individual pieces of false information.
NewsGuard’s unsuccessful pitch sheds light on the global trend of governments policing speech, from disinformation to dissenting opinions. In the United States, as revealed in the “Twitter Files,” the government often directly appeals to social media platforms and news outlets. More commonly, it works through seemingly innocent non-governmental organizations, like the Stanford Internet Observatory, to suppress disapproved speech. It also pays companies like NewsGuard to control speech through government contracts. NewsGuard, founded by Crovitz and Steven Brill, aims to monetize the reshaping of the internet, with a potential market worth $1.74 billion.
Unlike other anti-misinformation groups that provide rebuttals, NewsGuard categorizes entire news sites as trustworthy or untrustworthy using a grading system called ”nutrition labels.” These ratings, displayed next to a website’s name on the Microsoft Edge browser, evaluate the site based on nine criteria, such as responsible information presentation and avoidance of deceptive headlines. Critics argue that these ratings are subjective, as evidenced by The New York Times receiving a perfect score despite publishing false information. Independent news outlets with alternative perspectives also receive low ratings from NewsGuard.
NewsGuard aims to expand its browser screening process to libraries, academic centers, news aggregation portals, and internet service providers. However, its influence extends beyond that through products it plans to sell to social media platforms, content moderation firms, and advertisers. By providing an “exclusion list,” called BrandGuard, NewsGuard discourages advertisers from supporting sites it deems problematic. This creates conflicts of interest, as the buyers of BrandGuard may themselves be problematic entities seeking to protect their image.
How NewsGuard Starves Disfavored Sites Of Ad Clients
NewsGuard’s BrandGuard tool provides an “exclusion list” that deters advertisers from buying space on sites NewsGuard deems problematic. However, this warning service creates conflicts of interest with NewsGuard’s financial model. Publicis Groupe, NewsGuard’s largest investor and a major marketing conglomerate, integrates NewsGuard’s technology into its subsidiaries that handle online advertising. Publicis represents various corporate and government clients, including Pfizer, which raises concerns about biased ratings. Other investors in NewsGuard, such as D.C. lobbyist Bruce Mehlman, also have potential conflicts of interest. Critics argue that NewsGuard acts as a proxy for its government and corporate clients to suppress opposing views.
Internal documents, including the NewsGuard proposal to Twitter, government records, and discussions with targeted independent media sites, support the criticism. While the pitch to Twitter did not progress, NewsGuard remains open to licensing its data to any platform that can benefit from it. Interestingly, NewsGuard’s latest “misinformation monitor” criticizes X (formerly Twitter) for hosting a significant percentage of false or unsubstantiated claims related to the Israel-Hamas war.
Bullying Consortium News After Foreign Policy Critiques
Consortium News, a site targeted by NewsGuard, has filed a lawsuit alleging First Amendment violations and defamation. NewsGuard warned users against visiting Consortium News, claiming it published false claims about the Ukraine-Russia war. However, Consortium News, founded by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Robert Parry, is known for its rigorous investigative reporting and criticism of U.S. foreign policy. The label applied by NewsGuard is seen as a means to suppress dissenting voices, especially considering NewsGuard’s Defense Department contract to identify “false narratives” related to the Ukraine-Russia war.
Consortium News believes that NewsGuard’s actions are part of a pay-for-censorship scheme. The site was targeted after NewsGuard received funding from Publicis Groupe, which represents major pharmaceutical companies and has a vested interest in protecting their image. Consortium News has accused NewsGuard of acting as a front for the military to suppress critical reporting. The site’s lawsuit against NewsGuard is ongoing.
Punishing An Outlet That Criticized A NewsGuard Backer’s Pharma Clients
The Daily Sceptic, a small publication challenging public policy orthodoxies, including Covid-19 vaccines and climate change, sought to improve its NewsGuard rating. However, NewsGuard flagged articles that questioned vaccine efficacy and lockdowns as misinformation. The Daily Sceptic defended its reporting, citing academic literature and expert opinions. Despite providing rebuttals and fact checks, NewsGuard demanded retractions and ultimately downgraded The Daily Sceptic’s rating. Critics argue that NewsGuard’s process is arbitrary and serves to punish dissenting voices.
NewsGuard’s relationship with Publicis Groupe, which represents major pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, raises concerns about biased ratings. The ranking system effectively acts as a blacklist, guiding advertisers away from sites that challenge the pharmaceutical industry. Critics accuse NewsGuard of censoring the truth and potentially influencing ratings to favor its backers.
This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations.
rnrn
How does the involvement of intelligence and national security officials in content moderation raise concerns about privacy and the blurred line between legitimate national security concerns and the infringement of individuals’ rights to free speech
And transparency about ownership and funding. NewsGuard employs a team of journalists and analysts to manually review websites and produce these ratings. Critics argue that this approach is subjective and prone to bias, as it relies on the perspectives and judgments of a select group of individuals.
Furthermore, the use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to evaluate content raises concerns about the potential for censorship and the suppression of alternative viewpoints. While the intention behind NewsGuard’s proposal may be to combat misinformation and ensure the dissemination of accurate information, the question arises: who decides what is considered “harmful information”? The reliance on hashtags and search terms associated with harmful information may lead to overreach and the suppression of legitimate discourse.
The involvement of intelligence and national security officials in content moderation also raises concerns about privacy and the potential for government surveillance. It creates a scenario where the line between legitimate national security concerns and the infringement of individuals’ rights to free speech becomes blurry.
Additionally, the fact that NewsGuard aims to monetize the reshaping of the internet through government contracts highlights the potential for conflicts of interest. This raises questions about the independence and impartiality of its content moderation efforts. If companies like NewsGuard are financially tied to government contracts, there is a risk that their decisions regarding what constitutes reliable or trustworthy information may be influenced by political or economic considerations.
The unsuccessful pitch by NewsGuard sheds light on a broader trend of governments and other entities exerting control over online speech. The issue of misinformation and disinformation is undoubtedly significant, and efforts to combat it are necessary. However, it is essential to strike a balance between addressing this problem and safeguarding freedom of expression and diversity of opinion.
In conclusion, NewsGuard’s proposal to combat misinformation through content moderation raises concerns about the determination of truth, potential biases, censorship, privacy, and conflicts of interest. The global trend of governments and other entities seeking to control online speech highlights the need for careful consideration of the implications for free expression and democratic discourse. As we navigate the digital age, it is crucial to protect the principles of openness and transparency while addressing the challenges posed by misinformation.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
