'Silencing or Marginalizing Opposing Views:' Jonathan Turley Blasts NewsGuard for Censorship

Renowned legal expert Jonathan Turley has sounded the alarm on the potential threats to free speech posed by media rating systems, particularly focusing on the operations of NewsGuard.

In a recent op-ed in The Hill, legal scholar Jonathan Turley voiced serious concerns about the impact of media rating systems on free speech. His critique centers on NewsGuard, a company that rates media outlets based on their perceived 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 highlights the potential chilling effect these ratings can have on media outlets that criticize mainstream narratives. He states:

“For any site criticizing the media or the Biden administration, the most chilling words today are ‘I’m from NewsGuard and I am here to rate you.’ Conservatives have long accused the company of targeting conservative and libertarian sites and carrying out the agenda of its co-founder Steven Brill. Conversely, many media outlets have heralded his efforts to identify disinformation sites for advertisers and agencies.”

The legal scholar argues that these rating systems are used as tools for marginalizing opposing viewpoints. He explains:

“The rating of sites is arguably the most effective way of silencing or marginalizing opposing views. I previously wrote about other sites supported by the Biden administration that performed a similar function, including the Global Disinformation Index (GDI).”

Turley draws attention to what he perceives as a double standard in how media outlets and academics are labeled based on their political leanings. He notes:

“NewsGuard is not alone in employing this technique. Mainstream media outlets often label me as a ‘conservative professor’ in reporting my viewpoints. They do not ordinarily label professors with pronounced liberal views or anti-Trump writings as ‘liberal.’”

The implications of these rating systems are far-reaching. Turley suggests that they could influence advertisers, educators, and funders, potentially leading to the marginalization of certain media outlets based on subjective criteria. He writes: “Of course, what Brill considers nutritious may not be the preferred diet of many in the country. But they might not get a choice since the goal is to allow other companies and carriers to use the ratings to disfavor or censor non-nutritious sites.”

Turley expresses concern about the financial incentives behind these rating systems. He argues:

“They have commoditized free speech in blacklisting and potentially silencing others. If you are the Standard & Poor’s of political discourse, you can rate sites out of existence by making them a type of junk bond blog.”

The legal expert also highlights the potential for these rating systems to influence educational institutions. He points out: “The company has reportedly received federal contracts, which some in Congress have sought to block. It is also allied with organizations like Turnitin to control what teachers and students will read or use in schools.”

Turley’s experience with NewsGuard’s review of his blog, Res Ipsa, further illustrates his concerns. He recounts, “NewsGuard also made bizarre inquiries, including about why I called my blog ‘Res Ipsa Liquitur [sic] – the thing itself speaks. Could you explain the reason to this non-lawyer?’ Res ipsa loquitur is defined in the header as ‘The thing itself speaks,’ which I think speaks for itself.”