Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers?
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 2, 2021 (1)
Who Fact Checks the Fact Checkers?
In related news, the self-appointed arbiter of factual truths, NewsGuard, has had to backpedal in recent months and issue dozens of corrections to “fact checks” in which they’ve labeled the Wuhan lab leak theory as a debunked conspiracy theory with no basis in fact.
Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, NewsGuard has wrongly down-rated 225 websites for articles mentioning the lab leak theory. (#16) In reality, there’s far more evidence to support the lab leak theory than any other theory, but it took over a year before the weight of this evidence became too obvious for the media to ignore.
NewsGuard’s erroneous fact checks were recently highlighted in an August 11, 2021, report by the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER). (#17)
AIER decided to take a closer look at NewsGuard after receiving a request for comments on a NewsGuard fact check article regarding AIER and the Great Barrington Declaration — a statement written by public health experts from Harvard, Stanford and Oxford that calls on government to implement focused protection rather than lockdowns and self-isolation. AIERS investigation found that: (#18)
“... NewsGuard falls far short of the very same criteria for
accuracy and transparency that it claims to apply to other websites. Most of the company’s fact
checkers lack basic qualifications in the scientific and social-scientific fields that they
purport to arbitrate.
NewsGuard’s own track record of commentary — particularly on the Covid-19 pandemic — reveals a pattern of unreliable and misleading claims that required subsequent corrections, and analysis that regularly conflates fact with opinion journalism in rendering a judgement on a website’s content.
Furthermore, the company’s own practices fall far short of the transparency and disclosure standards it regularly applies to other websites ... NewsGuard’s staff primarily evaluates scientific claims by appealing to the authority of public figures who they designate as ‘experts’ on the subject in question.
Their approach generally avoids direct examination of the evidence surrounding contested claims, and instead cherry-picks a figure to treat as an authoritative final word ... many of their preferred authorities are political officeholders rather than persons trained in scientific or social-scientific methods.
By selectively curating cherry-picked political authorities rather than evaluating evidence directly, NewsGuard’s approach to fact-checking effectively sidesteps the scientific method. This strategy is rendered even more problematic by the general lack of scientific expertise within NewsGuard’s team of writers.
We examined the educational credentials, including the highest degree listed, for 28 publicly identified staff members on NewsGuard’s website. The company’s staff page reveals shockingly little expertise in either the hard sciences such as medicine or social sciences such as public policy, economics, and related fields ...
Most NewsGuard articles on Covid-19 topics and policies are written by [NewsGuard Deputy Editor for Health, John] Gregory, whose only identified qualification is a bachelor’s degree in Media Arts ... Gregory would not qualify as an expert in most of the fields he is responsible for fact-checking ...
Of course, non-experts have every right to offer opinions on scientific and social-scientific matters. Whether or not they should be taken seriously as fact checkers or act as arbiters of scientific disputes is another question entirely.”
NewsGuard’s own track record of commentary — particularly on the Covid-19 pandemic — reveals a pattern of unreliable and misleading claims that required subsequent corrections, and analysis that regularly conflates fact with opinion journalism in rendering a judgement on a website’s content.
Furthermore, the company’s own practices fall far short of the transparency and disclosure standards it regularly applies to other websites ... NewsGuard’s staff primarily evaluates scientific claims by appealing to the authority of public figures who they designate as ‘experts’ on the subject in question.
Their approach generally avoids direct examination of the evidence surrounding contested claims, and instead cherry-picks a figure to treat as an authoritative final word ... many of their preferred authorities are political officeholders rather than persons trained in scientific or social-scientific methods.
By selectively curating cherry-picked political authorities rather than evaluating evidence directly, NewsGuard’s approach to fact-checking effectively sidesteps the scientific method. This strategy is rendered even more problematic by the general lack of scientific expertise within NewsGuard’s team of writers.
We examined the educational credentials, including the highest degree listed, for 28 publicly identified staff members on NewsGuard’s website. The company’s staff page reveals shockingly little expertise in either the hard sciences such as medicine or social sciences such as public policy, economics, and related fields ...
Most NewsGuard articles on Covid-19 topics and policies are written by [NewsGuard Deputy Editor for Health, John] Gregory, whose only identified qualification is a bachelor’s degree in Media Arts ... Gregory would not qualify as an expert in most of the fields he is responsible for fact-checking ...
Of course, non-experts have every right to offer opinions on scientific and social-scientific matters. Whether or not they should be taken seriously as fact checkers or act as arbiters of scientific disputes is another question entirely.”
NewsGuard Apologizes for Erroneous Fact Checks
After being confronted about its erroneous fact checks on the lab leak theory, NewsGuard offered the following apology in a statement sent to AIER: (#19)
“NewsGuard either mischaracterized the sites’ claims about
the lab leak theory, referred to the lab leak as a ‘conspiracy theory,’ or wrongly grouped
together unproven claims about the lab leak with the separate, false claim that the COVID-19 virus
was man-made without explaining that one claim was unsubstantiated, and the other was
false.
NewsGuard apologizes for these errors. We have made the appropriate correction on each of the 21 labels.”
NewsGuard apologizes for these errors. We have made the appropriate correction on each of the 21 labels.”
AIER commented on the apology: (#20)
“Gregory and his colleagues appear to have simply decided that
their own premature dismissal of the lab leak hypothesis equated to ‘fact’ and proceeded to
penalize other sites not for factual errors, but rather for diverging from NewsGuard’s own
editorial position on the same subject.
When this position turned out to be mistaken, NewsGuard pivoted to remove the errors — albeit in non-transparent ways that downplay the significance or pervasiveness of their mistake.”
When this position turned out to be mistaken, NewsGuard pivoted to remove the errors — albeit in non-transparent ways that downplay the significance or pervasiveness of their mistake.”
NewsGuard Fails to Fulfill Its Own Credibility Criteria
In their report, AIER goes on to apply the criteria NewsGuard uses to evaluate a website’s credibility to NewsGuard itself. It’s ranking? A paltry 36.25 out of 100. According to AIER: (#21)
“This website fails to adhere to several basic journalistic
standards, and should be used with extreme caution as a source for verifying the reliability of
the websites it purports to rate ...
When we see fact checkers like NewsGuard, who not only fail to uphold their high-sounding principles but even publicly encourage working with the government to suppress speech, we should raise red flags.”
When we see fact checkers like NewsGuard, who not only fail to uphold their high-sounding principles but even publicly encourage working with the government to suppress speech, we should raise red flags.”
The NewsGuard ratings are meant to influence the reader, instructing them to disregard content with cautionary colors and cautions. That it would serve as the thought police of the technocratic establishment that seeks to silence dissent and bury information that doesn’t help move the Great Reset agenda forward is no surprise.
Especially considering its primary startup capital came from Publicis Groupe, (#22) a PR group that represents most of Big Pharma, including vaccine makers, and Big Tech. NewsGuard is also backed by Microsoft (#23) and Google.
The Publicis Groupe has been manipulating what people think about commercial products for nearly a century. Over that century, this advertising and communications firm bought or partnered with targeted advertising avenues, beginning with newspapers, followed by radio, TV, cinema and the internet.
With revenue avenues secured, Publicis’ clients and partners built a global presence that dominated the advertising world. Be it tobacco or sugar, Publicis Groupe found a way to promote and strengthen big industries. Publicis was recently sued (#24) for its deadly and illegal marketing of Purdue Pharma’s opioid products.
When you consider that Publicis describes its business model approach as putting clients and their needs and objectives at the center of all they do so their clients can “win and grow,” it’s easy to see what’s driving NewsGuard.
Overall, NewsGuard is just another big business aimed at keeping the chemical, drug and food industries, as well as mainstream media, intact by discrediting and eliminating unwanted competitors and analysts who empower you with information that runs counter to any given industry’s agenda.
If you’re as disturbed by censorship as I am, be sure to contact your local library today to find out if they’re one of the more than 700 libraries using NewsGuard. If they are, then ask them if they’re aware of NewsGuard’s censorship of truthful news that is now encroaching on scientific freedom and threatening the very roots of our democracy.
If your local library is using NewsGuard, it would be helpful to start a campaign to get it removed. Contact your neighbors and let them know what is happening so they can kick out this public health threat. Likewise, whenever you see someone referencing reports by the CCDH, call them out on it.
Source and Notes
(1) This document is part of an article by Dr. Mercola, 2-Sep-2021, "Top Misinformation Article Attributed to Chicago Tribune" (only available in the original site for 48 hours after publication date)
(2) Sources and references as quoted in the original article:
# 1
USA
Today August 23, 2021
# 2 Sun Sentinel April 8, 2021
# 3 Facebook Heidi Neckelmann
# 4 Chicago Tribune April 8, 2021
# 5 New York Times August 20, 2021 (Archived)
# 6 The Anti-Vaxx Playbook (PDF)
# 7, 12, 13 CCDH, The Disinformation Dozen
# 8 Misinformation Dozen: The Sequel
# 9, 11 Facebook August 18, 2021
# 10 GreenMed Info August 19, 2021
# 14 Greenmed Info March 25, 2021
# 15 Challenging Hateful Extremism 2019
# 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 AIER August 11, 2021
# 22 Washington Post March 3, 2018
# 23 axios.com August 23, 2018, NewsGuard Launches First Product With Help From Microsoft
# 24 Reuters May 6, 2021
# 2 Sun Sentinel April 8, 2021
# 3 Facebook Heidi Neckelmann
# 4 Chicago Tribune April 8, 2021
# 5 New York Times August 20, 2021 (Archived)
# 6 The Anti-Vaxx Playbook (PDF)
# 7, 12, 13 CCDH, The Disinformation Dozen
# 8 Misinformation Dozen: The Sequel
# 9, 11 Facebook August 18, 2021
# 10 GreenMed Info August 19, 2021
# 14 Greenmed Info March 25, 2021
# 15 Challenging Hateful Extremism 2019
# 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 AIER August 11, 2021
# 22 Washington Post March 3, 2018
# 23 axios.com August 23, 2018, NewsGuard Launches First Product With Help From Microsoft
# 24 Reuters May 6, 2021
© Copyright by Dr. Joseph Mercola. However, since August 2021 he declared: "Again I will still be writing my daily articles that I started 25 years ago BUT they will only be available for 48 hours before they are removed. In this way I hope to continue my mission to help you take control of your health – but it's up to you to download, share and repost this content. I will not be enforcing my copyright on this information so that you may freely share it."