247 n yiceggiren
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Simon, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 4 ɣef 5sɣur macpete, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 1 ɣef 5sɣur borsuk, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Huy Quang Bui, pred 6 rokmiThank you for rating AlterNet and other sites such as Jacobin green, NewsGuard.
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur km, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 1 ɣef 5sɣur Dave, pred 6 rokmiThis 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.
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur kdf dlkfl, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 6772518, pred 6 rokmiAn 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. - Yettwasezmel 3 ɣef 5sɣur John Moore, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur XXCoder, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 1 ɣef 5sɣur Che, pred 6 rokmiDieses AddOn erteilt Ritterschläge für US-treue transatlantische Medien. Muss man wissen.
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 15540451, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Sam Fleer, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 15518695, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 3 ɣef 5sɣur Philipp Bielefeldt, pred 6 rokmiDie 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. - Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur TheeMrsDi, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Erik van Luxzenburg, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 1 ɣef 5sɣur teonash, pred 6 rokmiDiese Erweiterung zeigt Bild.de als vertrauenswürdige News-Seite an. Sorry, das geht gar nicht!
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 15474514, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 1 ɣef 5sɣur Schischka, pred 6 rokmiKann ja nicht neutral sein, wenn ehemalige Direktoren von US-Geheimdiensten und ehemalige Mitglieder der US-Regierung im Vorstand sitzen!
- Yettwasezmel 4 ɣef 5sɣur Carifax, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Aseqdac Firefox 14348425, pred 6 rokmiNewsguard'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. - Yettwasezmel 1 ɣef 5sɣur Erk, pred 6 rokmi
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur Matthew F., pred 6 rokmiThis 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.
- Yettwasezmel 5 ɣef 5sɣur raphael.p, pred 6 rokmi