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.

TLDR; Beware the negative 1-star reviews, this plugin is excellent.

I will first state, this plugin does what I hoped it would do. It gives me a nutrition label of how much or little to trust the source of information. In a world where press I labeled as "Fake News" and "the enemy of the people", it's not surprised that there are folks that are giving this plugin a 1-star rating because CNN doesn't have a dangerous-source label to it.

They appear to be fair with all political spectrums, Fox/CNN/MSNBC in the US are all treated as trustable sources. Obviously, there is going to be strong opinions when it comes to the opinion pieces. They address this in their media overview.

The authors behind this plugin are in a difficult situation, and everyone will have some news source they like that they believe it is trustable. In that case, I'm seeing a lot of the negative reviews shooting the messenger, which is the NewsGuard team.

I am very appreciative of the work that the team behind this plugin are doing. I hope they continue down the path of giving details information in the form of ownership, integrity, and intention of the news sources we trust and be able to vouch for news sources we're not familiar with and put the red-flag up when bad actors are in the mix.

If you find yourself hating the results of this plugin, maybe you should be re-thinking the sources of information you trust. The problem isn't the plugin! Facts are a fickle thing, and that's what the group behind this plugin appear to be doing a good job giving us. To see the truth, and to then get angry about it and give the plugin a 1-star rating is intellectually dishonest and unfair to the authors. Most likely, the person that gave the rating is a 1-star intellect that doesn't want to hear anything that contradicts their echo-chamber social network.

This plugin is great! I hated having to apply critical thought to the news stories I was reading, so exhausting! Now I browse away in safety and comfort, secure in the knowledge that all my thinking is being done for me by professionals! I really hope ReligionGuard is in the works???

When you first see this, you have a small hope that it wouldn't be biased. But of course this is just another piece of the existing media machine to give legitimacy to the news websites who do as they are told and report events from the perspective of the Established Narrative. Those who report from a different perspective, who objectively speaking are no better or worse, get lower ratings.

At the end of the day, what is "fake news" and what isn't, is entirely dependent on the reader. NewsGuard will tell you if a website is pushing fake news...but only if your political views are aligned with the established narrative. As such it merely acts as a source of authority for such people to call their opposition and their news sources "fake news" rather than actually telling anyone which sites propagate "fake news" from any objective standpoint.

I recommend avoiding this addon if you can think critically already. You don't need a biased source to tell you what is fake or not, your own opinion will suffice. Make up your own mind.

It's the best in news technology because it helps fight for the people against misinformation.

More neocon lies from the likes of Steve Brill, veteran centrist journalist and author, his co-CEO Gordon Crovitz is a former Wall Street Journal columnist. After Brill, its second-biggest investor, along with his father, is Nick Penniman, the liberal publisher, and the third-biggest is Publicis Group, a multinational advertising agency.

Meanwhile, its advisory board includes Tom Ridge, the first-ever Homeland Security chief, and developer of another famous color-coded system, the terror alert, and Michael Hayden, the CIA director, also under George W. Bush. There are also several Obama and Clinton-era figures.

Daily Mail and German "Bildzeitung" green?
Thank you, do not need that