In their ongoing efforts to discredit, marginalize, and silence all those who dissent from their agenda, Leftists are increasingly trying to fool the public by establishing ostensibly neutral “fact-checking” organizations that purport to identify “fake news,” but which actually apply that label only to those who don’t parrot their nonsense. One of the most notorious examples of this is Snopes, which claims to be an objective arbiter of the accuracy of news reports, but which I have shown to be a deeply biased and misleading site: see here and here.
Recently I was contacted by John Gregory, an underling from a new entry in this field, NewsGuard, an initiative of the hard-Left self-appointed news arbiter Steven Brill. It was obvious that Gregory’s pen was sweating blood, and in my answers, I asked him about his own biases and those of NewsGuard. Gregory, as you’ll see below, ducked my questions, but his biases (and NewsGuard’s) are nonetheless obvious from his invocation of the Southern Poverty Law Center, his claim that it is inaccurate to say that the UN supports jihad, and more. He claims that his opinions are not relevant, but of course they couldn’t be more relevant, because they inform how he regards and evaluates Jihad Watch and other news sites. His refusal to acknowledge that, and to explain how he claims to overcome his own biases and produce an objective evaluation, is evidence of either astonishing naivete or craven dishonesty.
Here is my back-and-forth with Gregory:
1. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
My name is John Gregory, an analyst for NewsGuard, a new company researching and evaluating news sites to separate those which are performing real journalism.
In reviewing Jihad Watch, I had several questions about your editorial policies:
1) Does the site have a policy of correcting mistakes in its initial reporting? If so, could you point me to a recent example where a mistake was corrected and the original error was disclosed to readers?
2) Why is no biographical or contact information provided for writers other than Mr. Spencer?
3) How does the site disclose when articles are presenting the opinions of Mr. Spencer and other writers? Are those opinions presented as fact?
4) How does the site disclose its ownership by the Horowitz Freedom Center? The only mention I could find is the mailing address at the bottom of the homepage.
Thank you in advance for taking some time to answer these questions.
2. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
Some questions for you:
1. What is the political bias of NewsGuard?
2. Are you asking these questions of sites that minimize and/or deny the problem of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and other groups, or only of sites that call attention to it?
3. How do you distinguish what is “real journalism” as opposed to putative fake news?
4. Have you found any error of fact regarding Islam or jihad, or any demonstrably false news story, on Jihad Watch? Or do you simply object to the sources being cited? If so, on what grounds?
5. If you render a negative judgment on Jihad Watch, does Jihad Watch have any recourse and appeal? If so, how?
6. Who funds NewsGuard?
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Your answers:
2. I am the primary writer and editor for the site. I operated it alone for several years, and so this is not some conscious decision, it just happened that no one thought to add this info. You have a good idea, however, and I’ll add info for Hugh Fitzgerald, Christine Douglass-Williams, and Andrew Harrod asap.
3. Opinions are never presented as fact. The commentary that goes above every article is clearly the analysis of the author, and is generally backed up with references from authoritative Islamic sources and/or other relevant material.
4. The affiliation between Jihad Watch and the Freedom Center is no secret. The mailing address listing at the bottom of page is an obvious recognition of that fact. Jihad Watch is listed as a program of the Freedom Center in my bio page on Jihad Watch, and at the bottom of every article I write, as well as in Freedom Center publications.
3. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
Thank you for clearing that up. I’ll keep checking to see if the new writer bios are added.
In response to your questions:
Some questions for you:
1. What is the political bias of NewsGuard?
We aspire to have none.
2. Are you asking these questions of sites that minimize and/or deny the problem of jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and other groups, or only of sites that call attention to it?
We are asking these types of questions to all types of news sites, from those run by major newspapers to small market local TV stations as well as blogs, specialty publications, everybody.
3. How do you distinguish what is “real journalism” as opposed to putative fake news?
4. Have you found any error of fact regarding Islam or jihad, or any demonstrably false news story, on Jihad Watch? Or do you simply object to the sources being cited? If so, on what grounds?
I can’t speak to this yet as we haven’t finished our research. In cases where we cite fact checks done by other sites to which you have responded in the past, like in the case of Snopes, your response would be included.
5. If you render a negative judgment on Jihad Watch, does Jihad Watch have any recourse and appeal? If so, how?
Yes, you can make your case that our assessment is wrong
6. Who funds NewsGuard?
4. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
The new writer bios were added several days ago. You should have seen them by now.
Steven Brill, eh? Yes, sure, you’re not biased. You’re as even-handed as the day is long. Steven Brill.
5. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
Ah, I was looking in the wrong place. Our evaluation will be updated with info about the new writer bios.
Circling back on your previous question, we have found several instances where Jihad Watch has published misleading claims, failed to correct errors in its headlines and presented opinion as fact for which I’d like to offer you a chance to respond.
1. An April 2018 story entitled “Muslima nurse practitioner beheads her 7-year-old son near Rochester, New York” seems to dismiss the quote from the county sheriff about this attack having “zero indicators of anything religious, zero indicators in anything cultural,” and presents a Qur’an verse as proof of the religious nature of the attack. Your story also says this alleged perpetrator is a Muslim, but I can’t find mention of her religion from any of the local news outlets covering the story. Did Jihad Watch independently confirm her religion? Was there some other source pointing to a religious motive?
2. A July 2015 story based on Pamela Geller’s tweet about an ISIS-linked account tweeting minutes before a shooting in Chattanooga was later found to have occurred hours after the attack. Your story was updated to acknowledge this, but the original headline and story based on the false information remain unchanged. Does your corrections policy not include changing headlines later found to be incorrect?
3. A Dec. 2015 story entitled “House Democrats Move to Criminalize Criticism of Islam.” That headline ignores how the resolution as proposed was non-binding, meaning no new criminal statutes would have been enacted as your headline said. Was this story ever corrected or retracted?
4. Among the instances where stories on Jihad Watch have presented opinion as fact is a June 23 story by Christine Douglass-Williams calling the United Nations “jihad-supporting.” What factual basis was there for attaching that description to the U.N.?
5. We will be including the Southern Poverty Law Center’s labeling of Jihad Watch as a hate group in our evaluation. I know you’ve written about this assessment before, but do you have any statement now as to why you think the SPLC’s judgment on your site is unfair or unjust?
Again, thanks in advance for taking the time to answer these inquiries.
6. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
None of these are misleading or false — except, of course, to someone who opposes efforts to oppose jihad terror and who considers such efforts to be “Islamophobia.”
Also, why were the staff bios important to you? I don’t mind having them there, but fail to see how they comport with your stated mission. The number of sites that don’t include bios of all the staff writers must be in the thousands or more. Are you making similar demands of Leftist sites? Or is this question simply designed to demonize sites that oppose jihad terror and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others?
1. The story does not present a Qur’an verse as “proof of the religious nature of the attack.” It presents a Qur’an verse as an indication that a religious background was a possible element. There are many, many instances in which authorities have dissembled in cases involving jihad terror; see, for example, here: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262826/global-outbreak-mental-illness-robert-spencer. It was on this basis that the sheriff’s statement was regarded with suspicion. It is unlikely that he had the background or competence to determine such a question in any case. Your misrepresentation of our reporting on this is a predictable indication of the inherent unfairness of self-appointed “news guards” that are in reality only attempts to smear and defame those who do not accept the establishment Leftist perspective on important current issues.
2. Your link doesn’t work, so I cannot evaluate your claim here. I doubt it is true or accurate; we have corrected plenty of headlines that have been found to be inaccurate. If one remained uncorrected, it was an oversight. If you’re trying to make something out of an article that carries a correction, your case is exceedingly weak indeed.
3. The article notes that the resolution only “condemns” what it calls “hateful rhetoric.” It discusses no criminal penalties, as there were none. What your inquiry fails to note is that the headline says that the “House Democrats Move to Criminalize,” not that they “Criminalized,” criticism of Islam. Issuing non-binding resolutions of this kind is a step toward issuing binding ones, and outlawing categories of speech. Your enterprise itself is a step down the same road, attempting to defame honest news reporting when it disagrees with your perspective.
There are plenty of other stories similar to these. You’re a news watchdog organization, you say?
5. NewsGuard is clearly engaged in the same defamation and demonization that the Southern Poverty Law Center has engaged in for years in attempting to destroy foes of jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. The SPLC includes few Leftist and jihad groups among its “hate group” listings, while defaming Jihad Watch and other groups that stand for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law because we dissent from its hard-Left agenda. NewsGuard is a new and marginally more sophisticated attempt to defame pro-freedom groups by claiming on spurious grounds that what we report is inaccurate. We have published over 50,000 posts since 2003, and NewGuard took issue with exactly five of them, none of them on any factual grounds. We can only hope that discerning readers will be able to see through NewGuard’s false claims to be an objective evaluator of the accuracy of news reported, and not fall for this latest Leftist attempt at defamation and, ultimately, censorship.
7. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
As for the staff bios, we are asking that question of every site we review. We have come across quite a few where stories don’t have bylines or don’t provide information about who’s creating the content beyond a name. Your site meets that standard.
8. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
It’s noteworthy that you have nothing to say in response to my pointing out your own obvious biases. I’ll be publishing these exchanges when your hit piece on Jihad Watch appears.
Also: re your claim that “we are asking that question of every site we review,” I happen to know that that is false, as I know of at least one site that you have not asked that of.
9. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
I’m writing an article about the “fake news vetting” scam, and have the following questions for you. Thank you in advance for your answers:
1. How does NewsGuard plan to disclose its own biases and the perspectives of those who are claiming to be objective assessors of the accuracy of various news sites?
2. In vetting the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s reporting, did you take into account your own biases and perspectives on the subject matter treated at the site? If so, how? If not, why not?
3. Have you ever read the Qur’an in whole or part? The Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim? The tafasir of Ibn Kathir and the Jalalayn? If not, how can you judge the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and oppression of women, gays, and others?
4. Which do you think is the larger problem: jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?
5. Which do you think are more severely threatened: women who wear the hijab in the U.S. or women who do not wear the hijab, chador, or other coverings in Iran and Saudi Arabia?
6. Does NewsGuard plan to assess the reliability of sites that reflect the Leftist agenda, or only sites that oppose that agenda?
7. Are you familiar with the Latin phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”? If so, what is your answer to it?
8. Your questions to me appeared to show that you consider the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable guide to what constitutes a “hate group” and what does not. Are you aware of the widespread challenges to the SPLC’s credibility in this regard? Are you familiar with Maajid Nawaz? What do you think are the implications of the SPLC’s removal of Nawaz from its list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for those who remain on the list?
10. Robert Spencer to John Gregory
Just in case you missed these questions over the weekend, I am re-sending.
One more also: How does NewsGuard respond to charges that it is simply an attempt to defame and marginalize sites that dissent from a hard-Left agenda?
Thanks again in advance for your answers.
11. John Gregory to Robert Spencer
My apologies for getting these to you late.
Dear Mr. Gregory:
I’m writing an article about the “fake news vetting” scam, and have the following questions for you. Thank you in advance for your answers:
- How does NewsGuard plan to disclose its own biases and the perspectives of those who are claiming to be objective assessors of the accuracy of various news sites?
We will be running full professional bios of all staff and contributors on our website.
- In vetting the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s reporting, did you take into account your own biases and perspectives on the subject matter treated at the site? If so, how? If not, why not?
We aspire to be as fair and objective as possible, and multiple people are involved in every review. As soon as we learn we made a mistake, we will correct it publicly and transparently.
- Have you ever read the Qur’an in whole or part? The Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim? The tafasir of Ibn Kathir and the Jalalayn? If not, how can you judge the accuracy of Jihad Watch’s analysis of how jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and oppression of women, gays, and others?
We endeavor to be fair about every site we evaluate.
- Which do you think is the larger problem: jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?
My opinion is not relevant here.
- Which do you think are more severely threatened: women who wear the hijab in the U.S. or women who do not wear the hijab, chador, or other coverings in Iran and Saudi Arabia?
Again, my opinion is not relevant here.
- Does NewsGuard plan to assess the reliability of sites that reflect the Leftist agenda, or only sites that oppose that agenda?
We are rating sites across the political spectrum under the same criteria.
- Are you familiar with the Latin phrase “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”? If so, what is your answer to it?
Our mission is to review news and information sites to give readers some guidance in assessing the sites’ credibility. Anyone is free to “guard” or review us, of course.
- Your questions to me appeared to show that you consider the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable guide to what constitutes a “hate group” and what does not. Are you aware of the widespread challenges to the SPLC’s credibility in this regard? Are you familiar with Maajid Nawaz? What do you think are the implications of the SPLC’s removal of Nawaz from its list of “anti-Muslim extremists” for those who remain on the list?
We are aware of criticisms on the SPLC’s ratings and designations. Your own responses to SPLC’s claims about Jihad Watch would be mentioned in our final evaluation.
In any case, despite the paltriness of his case against Jihad Watch (over 60,000 posts and he is quibbling over four of them, and author bios), it is certain that John Gregory and NewsGuard will claim that this site is not accurate or trustworthy. In reality, however, the inaccurate and untrustworthy one is NewsGuard itself, in its claim to be an objective arbiter of the accuracy of news reports. It is no more objective or reliable than its guide, the Southern Poverty Law Center.
And while it may fool the credulous and uninformed, those who know better will recognize it for what it is: yet another attempt to blacken the reputation of, and thereby silence, news outlets that don’t regurgitate the Left’s fantasies about how Islam is a religion of peace, Muslims are victims of widespread discrimination in the U.S., and the like. There’s another sucker who will buy this nonsense born every minute.
______________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
______________________________________________________________
Why Should You Trust Us?
- Because we are trained journalists who have spent our careers dedicated to the profession. We care deeply about reliable journalism’s pivotal role in democracy. (In case you’re wondering, our experienced journalists come from diverse backgrounds and have no political axes to grind.)
- Because you can see the credentials and backgrounds of everyone responsible for every NewsGuard reliability rating and Nutrition Label that you read. For the names and biographies of our staff and contributors, click here.
- Because we have an ethics and conflicts of interest policy to which all of our analysts and editors have to agree. You can read that policy here.
- Because we are totally transparent about how we make all of our decisions. Our Nutrition Label write-ups explain what is behind our decisions. We disclose and explain in detail the nine criteria we use to rate each news site on its journalistic practices. We’re not a black box algorithm.
- Because we make concerted attempts to get comment from every website’s editor or manager before we write anything negative about the site, and always include the comment in our Nutrition Labels (or make changes after weighing the comment and realizing our initial conclusion was wrong). Algorithms don’t call for comment.
- Because we will post any complaints from website proprietors about anything we have written about them. And we will answer them publicly – and when warranted will make corrections, publicly, after we consider the complaint. You can read our policy for correcting errors or mistakes here.
- Because we accept no fees from the news websites we rate. (Our revenue comes from the platforms and search engines for licensing our ratings in order to include them in their feeds and search results.) We rate all news and information sites among the approximately 4,500 sites responsible for 98% of the online engagement in English in the United States.
- Because we do not collect any personal information of any kind from those who download and use our browser plug-ins. None. You can read our privacy policy here.
- Because bringing more information to people about the news sources they encounter online is our only business. Our success depends entirely on being trustworthy and reliable.
______________________________________________________________
