It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Thought Police 'NewsGuard' Is Owned By Big Pharma

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 07:37 AM
link   
Title plagiarised from the original article so don't blame me


Putting this out there as my first thought was "what ever could go wrong?"

Fake news needs to be eradicated or at least reduced dramatically but paying for a 3rd party to vet your sites just seems ludicrous. Who is to stop them influencing in the same was as the fake news itself? Who watches the Watchmen etc.

Thoughts ATS Colleagues ?

www.zerohedge.com...


As of March 2018, Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz, the “media entrepreneurs” behind NewsGuard, had raised $6 million to launch the company, which was slated to “address the fake news crisis by hiring dozens of trained journalists as analysts to review the 7,500 news and information websites most accessed and shared in the United States … These sites account for 98% of the news articles read and shared in the English language online in the United States.”

It was an early indication of what can go wrong when you trust a conflicted startup company to dictate what’s truth and what’s not. In January 2020, NewsGuard announced it would adopt a subscription service in the U.K. and will start charging for the service.

At the same time, NewsGuard issued a notice to subscribers in the U.S. with an offer to sign up early for $1.95 a month to “help keep NewsGuard free for the hundreds of libraries and schools that use NewsGuard.”


 


Moderator Note: Please Review
Posting Work Written by Others

"Going forward, if you post something that is not 100% your own writing or work you must use the EX TAG, post NO MORE THAN 10% of the original (or three paragraphs, whichever is least), and GIVE A LINK TO THE SOURCE MATERIAL."


edit on 1/29/2020 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Cymru

Hmm the pharmaceutical corporation connection is suspect. How can you trust the watchmen? It may be good for kids working on school projects if it helps navigate past websites that push out junk articles with lack of fact checking.

Interesting though.. thanks for sharing.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Cymru

but wait aren't there like a ton of websites that tell you who's who as far as their bias and if they fact check, make up Horse Sh@@ and are free.

here the one i use.

their take on the Washington Post,



In review, The Washington Post publishes stories with emotionally loaded headlines such as “Trump escalates China trade war, announces plan for tariffs on $200 billion in products” and in editorials “The Trump administration created this awful border policy. It doesn’t need Congress to fix it.” When it comes to sourcing they typically utilize credible sources such as Propublica.org, Associated Press, Slate, Princeton.edu, New York Times, wired.com and CNN. Story selection and editorials tend to favor the left with the Washington Post only endorsing Democratic Presidential candidates since 1976, including Hillary Clinton in the last election. The Washington Post has also been accused of having an anti-Progressive bias, with numerous op-eds negative toward Bernie Sanders.

Media Bias Fact Check


free .




edit on 29-1-2020 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cymru
Title plagiarised from the original article so don't blame me

Fake news needs to be eradicated or at least reduced dramatically but paying for a 3rd party to vet your sites just seems ludicrous. Who is to stop them influencing in the same was as the fake news itself? Who watches the Watchmen etc.

Thoughts ATS Colleagues ?

I challenge the premise entirely.

Why does it need to be eradicated 'or at least reduced dramatically'?

Much of it is highly entertaining, and none of it affects me or those I love, because we are capable of thinking for ourselves.

Besides - the vast majority of it comes directly from the MSM themselves... and they are the ones spouting this same nonsense (that something must be done).



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Because sadly, a huge portion of the population cannot see past the manipulation.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cymru
a reply to: tanstaafl
Because sadly, a huge portion of the population cannot see past the manipulation.

Which, sadly, is totally irrelevant, unless you can prove that censorship would solve that problem - which you can't do, because it won't/can't.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

It would remove the dross and clickbait that is intentionally created to deceive/influence.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 02:56 PM
link   
This sounds similar to the DALET Open Media-TV-socialmedia-podcast-radio broadcast system used to archive censor and otherwise put together the homogenized news scripted stories we see Everywhere.
Evidently it uses some underlying tech from Chyron: MOS 2.0 Media Object Server.
That's what I found on the dark side today.
Looks like a great tool to scrub the internet of narrative one no longer wishes to be public.
Got a chuckle being a Dr. Who fan, DALET is mighty close to DALEK.


ganjoa



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 03:20 PM
link   
They don’t need this organization since all the major media platforms already censor competing views. Facebook, Twitter, Google and many others already decide what you can see and post. Having another level of bias won’t matter.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cymru
a reply to: tanstaafl
It would remove the dross and clickbait that is intentionally created to deceive/influence.

No, it wouldn't, all of that from CNN, MSNBC, etc will still be there, shoved down our throats.

What will be removed is any and all discussion of things that TPTB don't want discussed - kind of like what China is doing right now with respect to the ongoing CoronaVirus situation there.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cymru
a reply to: tanstaafl
It would remove the dross and clickbait that is intentionally created to deceive/influence.

Said another way...

Prove it. Prove that what you just said is what would be the result. You can't. Because it won't and you know it.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Cymru

...and replace it with the same thing, only from a differing angle. One that you may agree with, but others might not. Would it then be alright to censor that??

Nope. People need to use their brains for something other than cushions for their skulls. If they don't, that's on them.

Nope. Let 'em write what they will, whoever they might be, or from what ever angle they might come. I'll read it, and others, and as I've tried to do my entire adult life, make up my own mind.



posted on Jan, 29 2020 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Wish i came up with this scam. Exceptionally stupid people pay me to read the news and see if it’s fake or not.

Or maybe not since they don’t seem to be doing so good.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join