- by Scott1763, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5In a world of "fake news," it is critical to have an independent and unbiased evaluation of news sites. NewsGuard does this quite well and lets you know which sites to trust.
- by glt, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5Every competitive endeavor needs an arbiter. Whether it is in a national election, or a courtroom trial, or a tennis court, or a chess match. Of course the judges are human, with all the complexities that go with that. But most arbiters try VERY hard to be objective, and take pride in the fairness they bring to the competition.
NewsGuard is there at the top with the very best. They lean in to the wind of adversity, and take the high road to fairness.
Trust is earned. They have mine.
- by Firefox user 15381359, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5I am fed up with journals, other news media, some tweeters and trolls publishing information that is suspect, clearly untrue or downright mischievous. It is sometimes very difficult to discern what is real news and what is fake; what is a reliable source of information and what is not. I subscribed to Newsguard in beta and now subscribe to the pay version and am more than satisfied with the protection and information it gives me.
I note that recently unfavourable reviews are appearing, often from sources rated poorly by Newsguard, and other malevolent contributors. This may, in fact, be a great compliment for Newsguard as an unwitting acknowledgement of the veracity of their ratings and assessments. Be very conscious of this when reading reviews !
- by Firefox user 14874135, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5A great tool for sifting through the noise, and steering you to reputable information. Try it for yourself and randomly review many news and media sources. If your favorite site doesn't score well, maybe ask yourself why instead of blaming the messenger.
- by Dave, 2 years agoRated 1 out of 5This was useful before it started opening new windows for TOS acceptance every time you opened the browser, or now with a new window that it opens randomly. It's become hugely irritating so I just removed it from Firefox and Chrome.
- by Firefox user 6772518, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5An excellent adjunct to fact-checking news stories by providing evaluation of media sources' "trustworthiness." NewsGuard's operational of definition of trustworthiness is based on nine criteria, with each site evaluated given a full "report card" based on each of those criteria. A summary evaluation is also arrived at, but the individual evaluations are key. The extension has worked fine for me. My main disappointment is NewsGuard's recent announcement that it plans to start charging for access to its evaluations, which have been free until now.
UPDATE 17 Mar 2020: I noticed a surprising number of extreme reviews for NewsGuard, so I scanned the "5s" and "1s" to get a better sense of what was going on. The 5s seem like a typical mix of vague, highly specific, and everything in between. The 1s seem to fll into three groups: 1) disappointment in the extension changing from free to subscription-based (a disappointing fact I noted in my original review); 2) general disappointment that some sites were given better or poorer evaluations than the reviewer felt was justified; and 3) non-specific negative reviews that reasonably may have been posted solely to lower NewsGuard's credibility as a source for evaluating the quality of news websites. This wreaks of an anti-NewsGuard campaign—perhaps started by sites that received negative ratings.
Obviously, I cannot prove whether there is/was a campaign to disparage NewsGuard, but I encourage those who are considering installing the NewsGuard extension to read a core sample of the reviews with 1-star ratings and decide for yourselves. If you are considering paying monthly for this kind of service, which many people can hardly afford, at least get a sense of how reliable the negative NewsGuard reviews seem to be before you decide.
- by Philipp Bielefeldt, 3 years agoRated 3 out of 5Die Idee hinter der Erweiterung ist gut. Und gerade für Nutzer:innen, die viel auf sozialen Medien unterwegs sind und dort Links von allen möglichen Seiten zugespielt bekommen, ist ein solches System vielleicht hilfreich. Gut ist in dem Zusammenhang, dass auch kleinere Blogs etc. überprüft werden, die auch dem medienaffinen Menschen ggf. nicht geläufig sind.
Allerdings zeigt die Erweiterung auch, wie schwierig es ist "brauchbaren Journalismus" zu definieren. Die Datenbank zielt offenkundig auf Transparenz und Nachvollziehbarkeit ab. Schön und gut – aber ein geeignetes Maß für journalistische Qualität ist das (allein) nicht.
So ist z.B. die BILD vertrauenswürdig; Obwohl BILD einen zumindest fragwürdigen Umgang mit eigenen Fehlern hat, regelmäßig wissentlich Unwahrheiten verbreitet und auch sonst journalistische Standards mit Füßen tritt (und regelmäßig gerügt und/oder verklagt wird). Auch andere Publikationen, die ich für borderline halte, bekommen ein grünes Placet.
Andererseits ist die Erweiterung geeignet, wirklich schlimme, aber wenig bekannte, Seiten zu vermeiden. Und dass Junge Freiheit, Daily Mirror und Öko-Test nicht immer den gebotenen journalistischen Standards entsprechen, weiß man ja vielleicht auch, wenn sie ein grünes Icon tragen.