- by brandonaut, 2 years 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, 2 years 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, 2 years 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, 2 years 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!
- by Firefox user 15312507, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5Fantastic 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.
- by Firefox user 14174075, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5This 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:
- by Firefox user 12548398, 2 years agoRated 1 out of 5The 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.
- by Firefox user 15263856, 2 years agoRated 5 out of 5TLDR; 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.