Rated 3.4 out of 5
3.4 Stars out of 5
- by Firefox user 14348425, 10 months agoRated 5 out of 5Newsguard's professional approach to its assessments has actually generated more responsibility in the media industry, but rather than simply a green tick or a red X, they might consider at least an amber light for the likes of Fox News, which has a pass rating.
Co-founders Brill and Crovitz have been in the game for a long time, both with a history of some left-field projects, yet I think they've done well with this one with a seemingly qualified and reliable team.
They are gradually expanding around the world, and this will be useful and informative for Europeans and Asians.
I'd probably give it around a 4.6/7 star for now but it's certainly on the way up. Definitely a high-quality product.
- by Matthew F., 10 months agoRated 5 out of 5This is a great add-on that judges news outlets by objective, unbiased standards of journalistic integrity. Many people rate this one star because it correctly rates their preferred news source as risky, biased, or untrustworthy. This outlet doesn't rate sites by their political leanings, it rates them based on objective standards such as their record on correcting false information, disclosing ownership and possible conflicts of interest, whether they handle fact / opinion responsibly, and whether they routinely publish false statements. Because of this, the ratings aren't based on politics, they're based on journalism as they should be.
- by LifeNews.com, 10 months agoRated 1 out of 5NewsGuard 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.
- by brandonaut, a year agoRated 5 out of 5NewsGuard 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.
- by Basix, a year agoRated 5 out of 5I 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.
- by Saint Gerbil, a year agoRated 1 out of 5Now 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.
- by Caramel Cookie, a year agoRated 5 out of 5I 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!