Renowned legal expert Jonathan Turley has warned about the potential threat that media rating systems pose to freedom of speech, focusing specifically on the operations of NewsGuard.
in A recent editorial in The HillLegal scholar Jonathan Turley has expressed serious concerns about the impact of media rating systems on freedom of speech. His criticism focuses on NewsGuard, a company that rates media outlets based on their credibility and transparency. Turley’s concerns stem from his personal experience with NewsGuard, which began reviewing his blog shortly after he published a critical column about the company.
Turley highlighted the potential chilling effect such assessments could have on media outlets that criticize mainstream reporting, saying:
“For any site critical of the media or the Biden administration, the most chilling words today are: ‘I’m from NewsGuard and I’m here to judge you.’ Conservatives have long accused the company of targeting conservative and libertarian sites and carrying out the agenda of co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have praised his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.”
Legal scholars argue that these rating systems are used as a means to eliminate dissent, explaining:
“Rating sites is arguably the most effective way to silence or ignore opposing voices. I’ve written previously about another Biden Administration-backed site that serves a similar function, the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).”
Turley points out the double standard by which media outlets and academics are categorised based on their political leanings, saying:
“Newsguard is not alone in this tactic. Mainstream media outlets often label me as a ‘conservative professor’ when reporting on my views. They typically do not label professors who express liberal views or write anti-Trump articles as ‘liberal.'”
The impact of such a ratings system would be far-reaching. Turley notes that such a system could influence advertisers, educators and funders to marginalize certain media based on subjective criteria. “Of course, what Brill considers nutritious may not be the preferred meal of many in the country,” he writes, “but they may not have a choice, as the aim is to enable other companies and operators to use the ratings to penalize or censor less nutritious sites.”
Turley expressed concern about the financial incentives behind such rating systems, arguing:
“They’ve commodified free speech by blacklisting and silencing others. If you’re the Standard & Poor’s of political speech, you can turn a site into a junk bond blog and deny it exists.”
Legal experts also point out that such assessment systems could have implications for educational institutions: “The company has reportedly won federal contracts that some in Congress have tried to block. The company also partners with organizations like Turnitin to manage what teachers and students read and use in school,” he said.
Turley’s experience with NewsGuard’s investigation into his blog Less IPSAFurther confirming his concerns, he says Newsguard has also made some strange inquiries, such as asking why I named my blog “Res Ipsa Liquitur.” [sic] “The thing speaks for itself. Can you explain why to this non-lawyer? Res ipsa loquitur is defined in the headline as ‘The thing speaks for itself,’ and I think it speaks for itself.”
Click here for details The hill here.
Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering free speech and online censorship.
