This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think a detailed, standalone list of "Reliable" and "Unreliable" new sources should be given, vs the linear, "in sentence" format being used now. At this time the Article does not include any "reliable" news sources. Also great attention to should be given to exactly how this determination is made, particularly since there is a "license" component, which to me implies that a news source can purchase their "reliability" at the time they pay for their "license". Also, given the recent maneuvers by the SPLC and ADL, I would not be surprised that a News Source's "reliability" would also be determined by their political orientation, and this new quality called "hate". Tym Whittier ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_Guard_%2B_Media_Bias_Fact_Check_Redux FrederickZoltair ( talk) 00:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This desperately needs a criticisms section.
E.g. a bad/erroneous article at CNN will get a better rating than a good/accurate article on Breitbart. The same article will get different ratings depending on who the aggregator is. That might be inferred to the technical folks by saying "site rating", but the average users/readers should probably have that flaw called out by someone that's better at writing in the correct tone. David Every ( talk) 21:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's a response from Joe Lauria, editor of Consortium News, one of the publications Newsguard gave a red label to and accused of publishing false content This includes Lauria's own critique of Newsguard. One of the significant criticisms is that the board of directors includes former officials from the CIA, NATO, and Homeland Security, and that they have partnerships with the Pentagon and State Department. Lauria says that Newsguard's evaluations are biased in favor of those organizations and their policies. This is a WP:RS, if for no other reason than it reflects the opinion of an editor whose publication has been red-labeled, in defending himself, under WP:RSEDITORIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyznp8qUEkg
As U.S. Funnels Money to Ukraine, Independent Media Faces Pressure to Parrot Official Narrative
Democracy Now
July 12, 2022
Joe Lauria, editor-in-chief of Consortium News
Lauria: Newsguard started in two or three years ago. It's a private company based in New York. On its board is Michael Hayden who was a former CIA NSA director, our former NATO secretary general rasmussen, Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security director. They have partnerships with the Pentagon and with the State Department. Stephen Brill was one of the founders of it, who back in the 90s had the magazine Brill's Content. They take it upon themselves to review news organizations large and small, from the New York Times to Consortium News and they wrote to us that they were reviewing us, but in the very first email we were accused of publishing false content on Ukraine. Well we turned the tables on them. I wrote a 9,000 word article responding to their charges against us in which I show that in fact News Guard's reporting on Ukraine is false and they need to make the corrections that they're demanding of us. It's chilling because they will give a red label to websites that they consider to be untrustworthy. This pops up on libraries across Europe and the United States, and every person who buys a Microsoft computer or Microsoft software has this extension built in that they can turn on, and then whenever our website shows up on social media, whether it's Twitter or Google, there'll be this red mark against us and and there's a warning to proceed with caution. This is outrageous obviously. We have a right even to be wrong. We have a right to say what we want to. This is supposed to be the freedom of press that the U.S and European governments protest that they support, and in fact they're trying to protect their own interests and to cover up any criticism, legitimate criticism, of the failures of their policies. And this is no different than any kind of totalitarian system. I'm sorry because they want a total control and, the word 'totals' in 'totalitarian.'
-- Nbauman ( talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
NewsGuard receives government funding, according to journalist Michael Shellenberger (youtube video 22YOaYeI6lA, at t=550), but NewsGuard denied it was 'government-funded' after being called out as part of the vast Censorship Complex, per https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/13/is-newsguard-government-funded-you-decide/. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA864921P1569_9700_-NONE-_-NONE- shows NEWSGUARD (TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 25 W 52ND ST FL 15, NEW YORK, NY 10019-6104) received DoD funding of $749,387 in 2021. The details of the contract should be available in a couple weeks at https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/newsguard-technologies-contracts-dod-129862/, to show what was funded. However, from reading the Federalist article and its sources, it already seems to be beyond serious dispute that NewsGuard received significant government funding for its work - the core claims therein of Crovitz and Brill don't seem credible. So what does it mean to report this in a balanced way? Why are blacklisted links blocked from discusion pages? DrSFCA ( talk) 04:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I restored some background information with this edit after being accused of SOAP. Some folks have strong feelings about certain outlets, which I understand, but the basic information itself doesn't carry an opinion. CurryCity ( talk) 06:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
3O Response: If no other source but the organization's own "About Us" page saw fit to comment on any of this as significant, I think we'd be giving it undue weight by including it in the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
References
The recent edits grossly violate WP:POV and clearly fall under WP:CT/AP. - Hipal ( talk) 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of the references don't meet even the basic requirements for use. If someone wants to argue that any of them are usable in this article for the disputed content, please do so in light of WP:RS and WP:IS. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Roberto incognito: suggests the following might be usable:
I believe the first three meet basic RS criteria, the third may not per WP:RSOPINION, but I'll assume it is reliable as well.
The second and third are primary sources. Alone, they have no WP:WEIGHT.
The fourth doesn't mention NewsGuard at all, and only mentions Hayden in passing. As such, it is a WP:SYN and POV violation to include.
That leaves the first reference, which is a warmed-over press release. The author didn't bother to check GDI's report, even when GDI did not respond to a request for comment. It's poor reporting, demonstrating little or no WEIGHT. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-claims-us-state-department-funds-tech-that-censors-conservative-news-2023-12-06/ and https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-lawsuit-claiming-us-helped-censor-conservative-news-can-proceed-2024-05-08/ are much better sources that should be used instead, if we decide any mention of the topic should be included. -- Hipal ( talk) 00:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think a detailed, standalone list of "Reliable" and "Unreliable" new sources should be given, vs the linear, "in sentence" format being used now. At this time the Article does not include any "reliable" news sources. Also great attention to should be given to exactly how this determination is made, particularly since there is a "license" component, which to me implies that a news source can purchase their "reliability" at the time they pay for their "license". Also, given the recent maneuvers by the SPLC and ADL, I would not be surprised that a News Source's "reliability" would also be determined by their political orientation, and this new quality called "hate". Tym Whittier ( talk) 17:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#News_Guard_%2B_Media_Bias_Fact_Check_Redux FrederickZoltair ( talk) 00:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
This desperately needs a criticisms section.
E.g. a bad/erroneous article at CNN will get a better rating than a good/accurate article on Breitbart. The same article will get different ratings depending on who the aggregator is. That might be inferred to the technical folks by saying "site rating", but the average users/readers should probably have that flaw called out by someone that's better at writing in the correct tone. David Every ( talk) 21:01, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Here's a response from Joe Lauria, editor of Consortium News, one of the publications Newsguard gave a red label to and accused of publishing false content This includes Lauria's own critique of Newsguard. One of the significant criticisms is that the board of directors includes former officials from the CIA, NATO, and Homeland Security, and that they have partnerships with the Pentagon and State Department. Lauria says that Newsguard's evaluations are biased in favor of those organizations and their policies. This is a WP:RS, if for no other reason than it reflects the opinion of an editor whose publication has been red-labeled, in defending himself, under WP:RSEDITORIAL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kyznp8qUEkg
As U.S. Funnels Money to Ukraine, Independent Media Faces Pressure to Parrot Official Narrative
Democracy Now
July 12, 2022
Joe Lauria, editor-in-chief of Consortium News
Lauria: Newsguard started in two or three years ago. It's a private company based in New York. On its board is Michael Hayden who was a former CIA NSA director, our former NATO secretary general rasmussen, Tom Ridge, the first Homeland Security director. They have partnerships with the Pentagon and with the State Department. Stephen Brill was one of the founders of it, who back in the 90s had the magazine Brill's Content. They take it upon themselves to review news organizations large and small, from the New York Times to Consortium News and they wrote to us that they were reviewing us, but in the very first email we were accused of publishing false content on Ukraine. Well we turned the tables on them. I wrote a 9,000 word article responding to their charges against us in which I show that in fact News Guard's reporting on Ukraine is false and they need to make the corrections that they're demanding of us. It's chilling because they will give a red label to websites that they consider to be untrustworthy. This pops up on libraries across Europe and the United States, and every person who buys a Microsoft computer or Microsoft software has this extension built in that they can turn on, and then whenever our website shows up on social media, whether it's Twitter or Google, there'll be this red mark against us and and there's a warning to proceed with caution. This is outrageous obviously. We have a right even to be wrong. We have a right to say what we want to. This is supposed to be the freedom of press that the U.S and European governments protest that they support, and in fact they're trying to protect their own interests and to cover up any criticism, legitimate criticism, of the failures of their policies. And this is no different than any kind of totalitarian system. I'm sorry because they want a total control and, the word 'totals' in 'totalitarian.'
-- Nbauman ( talk) 19:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
NewsGuard receives government funding, according to journalist Michael Shellenberger (youtube video 22YOaYeI6lA, at t=550), but NewsGuard denied it was 'government-funded' after being called out as part of the vast Censorship Complex, per https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/13/is-newsguard-government-funded-you-decide/. https://www.usaspending.gov/award/CONT_AWD_FA864921P1569_9700_-NONE-_-NONE- shows NEWSGUARD (TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 25 W 52ND ST FL 15, NEW YORK, NY 10019-6104) received DoD funding of $749,387 in 2021. The details of the contract should be available in a couple weeks at https://www.muckrock.com/foi/united-states-of-america-10/newsguard-technologies-contracts-dod-129862/, to show what was funded. However, from reading the Federalist article and its sources, it already seems to be beyond serious dispute that NewsGuard received significant government funding for its work - the core claims therein of Crovitz and Brill don't seem credible. So what does it mean to report this in a balanced way? Why are blacklisted links blocked from discusion pages? DrSFCA ( talk) 04:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I restored some background information with this edit after being accused of SOAP. Some folks have strong feelings about certain outlets, which I understand, but the basic information itself doesn't carry an opinion. CurryCity ( talk) 06:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
3O Response: If no other source but the organization's own "About Us" page saw fit to comment on any of this as significant, I think we'd be giving it undue weight by including it in the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
References
The recent edits grossly violate WP:POV and clearly fall under WP:CT/AP. - Hipal ( talk) 19:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Most, if not all, of the references don't meet even the basic requirements for use. If someone wants to argue that any of them are usable in this article for the disputed content, please do so in light of WP:RS and WP:IS. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Roberto incognito: suggests the following might be usable:
I believe the first three meet basic RS criteria, the third may not per WP:RSOPINION, but I'll assume it is reliable as well.
The second and third are primary sources. Alone, they have no WP:WEIGHT.
The fourth doesn't mention NewsGuard at all, and only mentions Hayden in passing. As such, it is a WP:SYN and POV violation to include.
That leaves the first reference, which is a warmed-over press release. The author didn't bother to check GDI's report, even when GDI did not respond to a request for comment. It's poor reporting, demonstrating little or no WEIGHT. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-claims-us-state-department-funds-tech-that-censors-conservative-news-2023-12-06/ and https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/texas-lawsuit-claiming-us-helped-censor-conservative-news-can-proceed-2024-05-08/ are much better sources that should be used instead, if we decide any mention of the topic should be included. -- Hipal ( talk) 00:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)