Here are is the column:<\/span><\/p>\n Recently, I wrote a\u00a0Hill column<\/a>\u00a0criticizing NewsGuard, a rating operation being used to warn users, advertisers, educators and funders away from media outlets based on how it views the outlets\u2019 \u201ccredibility and transparency.\u201d<\/p>\n Roughly a week later, NewsGuard came knocking at my door. My blog,\u00a0Res Ipsa<\/a>\u00a0(jonathanturley.org<\/a>), is now being reviewed and the questions sent by NewsGuard were alarming, but not surprising.<\/p>\n I do not know whether the sudden interest in my site was prompted by my column. I have previously criticized NewsGuard as one of the most sophisticated operations being used to \u201cwhite list\u201d and \u201cblack list\u201d sites.<\/p>\n My\u00a0new book, \u201cThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0details how such sites fit into a massive censorship system that one federal court called \u201cOrwellian.\u201d<\/p>\n For any site criticizing the media or the Biden administration, the most chilling words today are \u201cI\u2019m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you.\u201d<\/p>\n Conservatives have\u00a0long accused<\/a>\u00a0the company of targeting conservative and libertarian sites and\u00a0carrying out the agenda<\/a>\u00a0of its co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have heralded his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.<\/p>\n Brill and his co-founder, L. Gordon Crovitz, want their company to be the media version of the Standard & Poor\u2019s rating for financial institutions. However, unlike the S&P, which looks at financial reports, NewsGuard rates highly subjective judgments like \u201ccredibility\u201d based on whether they publish \u201cclearly and significantly false or egregiously misleading\u201d information. They even offer a \u201cNutrition Label<\/a>\u201d for consumers of information.<\/p>\n Of course, what Brill considers nutritious may not be the preferred diet of many in the country. But they might not get a choice since the goal is to allow other companies and carriers to use the ratings to disfavor or censor non-nutritious sites.<\/p>\n The rating of sites is arguably the most effective way of silencing or marginalizing opposing views.\u00a0I\u00a0previously<\/a>\u00a0wrote about other sites supported by the Biden administration that performed a similar function, including the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).<\/p>\n GDI then released a list of the 10 most dangerous sites, all of which are popular with conservatives, libertarians and independents. GDI warned advertisers that they were accepting \u201creputational and brand risk\u201d by \u201cfinancially supporting disinformation online<\/a>.\u201d The blacklisted sites included\u00a0Reason<\/a>, a respected libertarian-oriented source of news and commentary about the government. However, HuffPost, a far left media outlet, was included among the 10 sites at\u00a0lowest risk of spreading disinformation<\/a>.<\/p>\n When NewsGuard came looking for Res Ipsa, the questions sounded like they came directly from GDI.<\/p>\n I was first asked for information on the financial or revenue sources used to support my blog, on which I republish my opinion pieces from various newspapers and publish original blog columns.<\/p>\n Given NewsGuard\u2019s reputation, the email would ordinarily trigger panic on many sites. But I pay not to have advertising, and the closest I come to financial support would be my wife, since we live in a community property state. If NewsGuard wants to blacklist me with my wife, it is a bit late. Trust me, she knows.<\/p>\n NewsGuard also claimed that it could not find a single correction on my site. In fact, there is a\u00a0location for readers<\/a>\u00a0marked \u201ccorrections\u201d to register objections and corrections to postings on the site. I also occasionally post\u00a0corrections,<\/a>\u00a0changes<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0clarifications<\/a>.<\/p>\n NewsGuard also made bizarre inquiries, including about why I called my blog \u201cRes Ipsa Liquitur [sic] \u2013 the thing itself speaks. Could you explain the reason to this non-lawyer?\u201d Res ipsa loquitur is defined in the header as \u201cThe thing itself speaks,\u201d which I think speaks for itself.<\/p>\n But one concern was particularly illuminating:<\/p>\n \u201cI cannot find any information on the site that would signal to readers that the site\u2019s content reflects a conservative or libertarian perspective, as is evident in your articles.\u00a0Why is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site\u2019s point of view?\u201d<\/p>\n I have historically been criticized as a liberal, conservative or a libertarian depending on the particular op-eds. I certainly admit to libertarian viewpoints, though I hold many traditional liberal views.<\/p>\n For example, I have been outspoken for decades in favor same-sex marriage, environmental protection, free speech and other individual rights. I am a registered Democrat who has defended reporters, activists and academics on the left for years in both courts and columns.<\/p>\n The blog has thousands of postings that cut across the ideological spectrum. What I have not done is suspend my legal judgment when cases touch on the interests of conservatives or Donald Trump. While I have criticized Trump in the past, I have also objected to some of the efforts to impeach or convict him on dubious legal theories.<\/p>\n Yet, NewsGuard appears to believe that I should label myself as conservative or libertarian as a warning or notice to any innocent strays who may wander on to my blog. It does not appear that NewsGuard makes the same objection to HuffPost or the New Republic, which run overwhelmingly liberal posts. Yet, alleged conservative or libertarian sites are expected to post a warning as if they were porn sites.<\/p>\n NewsGuard is not alone in employing this technique. Mainstream media outlets often label me as a \u201cconservative professor<\/a>\u201d in reporting my viewpoints. They do not ordinarily label professors with pronounced liberal views or anti-Trump writings as \u201cliberal.\u201d<\/p>\n Studies show that the vast majority of law professors run from the left to the far left.\u00a0A\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0found that only 9 percent of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative. A 2017\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0found only 15 percent of faculties overall were conservative.<\/p>\n It is rare for the media to identify those professors as \u201cliberal,\u201d including many professors on the far left who regularly denounce conservatives or Republicans. It is simply treated as not worth mentioning. Yet, anyone libertarian or right of center gets the moniker as a warning that their viewpoint should considered\u00a0in weighing their conclusions.<\/p>\n Yet, NewsGuard is in the business of labeling people . . . and warning advertisers. It considers my writings to be conservative or libertarian and wants to know \u201cWhy is this perspective not disclosed to give readers a sense of the site\u2019s point of view?\u201d<\/p>\n It does not matter that my views cut across the ideological spectrum or that I do not agree with NewsGuard\u2019s label. Indeed, while I clearly hold libertarian views, libertarians run a spectrum from liberal to conservative. The common article of faith is the maximization of individual rights, while there is considerable disagreement on many policies. Steven Brill is considered a diehard liberal. Would it be fair to add a notice or qualifier of \u201cliberal\u201d to any of his columns or opinions?<\/p>\n It does not matter. Apparently from where NewsGuard reviewers sit, I am a de facto conservative or libertarian who needs to wear a digital bell to warn others.<\/p>\n It is a system that includes what Elon Musk correctly called \u201cthe advertising boycott racket.\u201d Musk was\u00a0responding to another such group<\/a>\u00a0pushing a rating system as an euphemism for blacklisting. For targeted sites, NewsGuard is now the leading racketeer in that system. It makes millions of dollars by rating sites \u2014 a new and profitable enterprise with dozens of other academic and for-profit groups.<\/p>\n They have commoditized free speech in blacklisting and potentially silencing others. If you are the Standard & Poor\u2019s of political discourse, you can rate sites out of existence by making them a type of junk bond blog.<\/p>\n Yet, the fact that I have no advertisers or sponsors to scare off does not mean that NewsGuard cannot undermine the site.<\/p>\n The company has reportedly received federal contracts, which\u00a0some in Congress have sought to block<\/a>. It is also\u00a0allied with organizations like Turnitin<\/a>\u00a0to control what teachers and students will read or use in schools.<\/p>\n The powerful American Federation of Teachers, which has been criticized for its far left political alliances with Democratic candidates, has also\u00a0pushed NewsGuard for schools<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is why my\u00a0book<\/a>\u00a0calls for a number of reforms, including barring federal funds for groups engaged in censoring, rating or blacklisting sites.<\/p>\n NewsGuard shows that such legislation cannot come soon enough.<\/p>\n Jonathan Turley\u00a0<\/a>is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of \u201cThe Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage<\/a>\u201d (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).<\/em><\/p>\n N.B.: The original version of this column included MSNBC as an example of liberal sites that do not post their own ideological bent or label. I later heard from NewsGuard that they did indeed mark down MSNBC for failing to make such a disclosure, so I removed it from this blog column. I\u00a0posted a response today<\/a>\u00a0on why I continue to oppose rating systems such as NewsGuard.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/jonathanturley.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Jim_Hutton_Ellery_Queen_1976.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>Below is my column in The Hill on the recent notice that this blog is now being formally \u201creviewed\u201d by NewsGuard, a company that I just criticized in a prior Hill column as a threat to free speech. The questions from NewsGuard were revealing and concerning. Today, I have posted\u00a0the response of NewsGuard\u2019s co-founder Gordon Crovitz<\/a>\u00a0as well as\u00a0my response<\/a>\u00a0to his arguments.<\/p>\n