177 Bewertungen
  • NewsGuard claims to fight fake news, but it merely trashes web sites for which it has a political disagreement. It hides behind reviews that only appear to NewsGuard users and are not made publicly available in a manner in which they can be corrected or commented on. NewsGuard provides very little proof of its contentions other than claiming certain articles or false or saying there is disagreement about a certain point. NewsGuard is not a reliable source for information about fake news web sites.
  • No option to stop it's tab from opening automatically. (that I could find)
  • NewsGuard does a good job of giving reasons why they rated a site a certain way. Their reasons are generally about journalistic integrity (funding sources, willingness to correct errors, making opinion/fact differences apparent) not political leanings, which is good. In general, I don't like to rely on the overall rating (green or red) that they give, but I find the breakdown of "nutrition facts" very useful. I feel like the categories they choose to rate on have given me a vocabulary of attributes to look for in all news and information outlets, even when I'm not using the extension.
  • I love the fact that the reviews suggest discrediting Fox News and CNN at the same time. God guys, this is not a tool for finding the media that matches your taste.
  • Terms of Service page constantly spams you. Uninstalling.
  • Now spams a TOC popup page **EVERYTIME** you open the browser.
    Was a useful tool for telling the difference between reputable journalists or not.
    more hassle than its worth.
  • Fox News and Breitbart with a green check automatically discredits this app. Seriously!
  • I am a bit surprised by the many 1-star ratings. It seems quite a few people are a bit confused about journalist standards: it's not about objectivity (because we are all human beings and therefore biased) but about transparency.

    I still remember vividly my colleague sending me a link to an article claiming that Rudolf Hess was scheming with the Brits against the Soviets during WW2. I saw the alert from News Guard that the site is untrustworthy, checked up the Sputnik News and hey, whaddyaknow, it's covertly financed by the Russian govt! The Hess story is a Stalinist era conspiracy theory that has recently been pushed again by the russian govt.

    I don't necessarily like or trust all the sites that are being given a good rating by the developers but that doesn't mean that they are bad.

    Please look a bit beyond the tip of your own nose before giving another 1-star review to this brilliant extension!
  • Fantastic first line of defense against fake news. The plugin warns you with an icon about sources that fail their standard checks. The plugin also has detailed (sometimes overly) "nutrition labels" about why they rated organization a certain way. These labels let you get an idea about why an organization like Fox News was rated positively, even if you disagree with it. This app lets you see how organizations uphold (or don't) journalistic integrity EVEN IF THEY ARE BIASED. If you expect this app to simply confirm your personal biases, then don't bother.
  • This is the single most important extension of the modern era

    Most of the one star reviews of this application are likely made by hostile foreign actors.

    RT is openly attacking this app:
  • Les sites de propagande sont indiqués comme fiables, les sites qui ne font pas de propagande indiques comme étant non fiables.
  • The criteria exist only as a way to pretend to have some form of objective standards. But in truth, the method by which the 9 points are evaluated is completely 100% subjective. Many examples can be used to show this, to the point where this review could end up obscenely long and come across as rambling, so instead I will keep it short and point out the worst one:

    Wikileaks has a red rating for "Failure to regularly correct or clarify errors".

    Think about that for a second. Wikileaks has a perfect record in terms of publishing factual information. So in other words, they give it a red-rating for failing to correct mistakes...BECAUSE WIKILEAKS HASN'T MADE ANY MISTAKES. Even the most biased individual should be able to admit that at the very worst, Wikileaks should be given an N/A rating instead of a red one for not correcting their NONEXISTENT errors. But Newsguard doesn't do that, it gives it a failing grade. Simply amazing.

    That's not incompetence. That's a flat out lie. This is blatant journalistic malfeasance.

    Newsguard can therefore be safely regarded as a smear campaign against news sites that the curators behind it do not like, while giving a free pass to US corporate media. Only download this add-on if you want to laugh at how blatantly biased it is. Some of the mental gymnastics Newsguard pulls to ensure cooked scores are impressive to say the least.

    TL;DR: Blatantly and intentionally deceptive. Beware the 5 star reviews as there is a solid chance they are paid shills.
  • This doesn't rate media Bias, rates public transparency (shadyness) of the news source.
  • Rates all green to activist news sites. Garbage.