by Robert Spencer
Who watches the watchmen?
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.
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.
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.
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?
We adhere to the same standards in dealing with all sites and our criteria are found on our site, Newsguardtechnologies.com.
We adhere to the same standards in dealing with all sites and our criteria are found on our site, Newsguardtechnologies.com.
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.
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
Yes, you can make your case that our assessment is wrong
6. Who funds NewsGuard?
A full list of our investors can be found here: https://newsguardtechnologies.com/our-investors/
A full list of our investors can be found here: https://newsguardtechnologies.com/our-investors/
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.
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?
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.
4. You would think
that a supposed news watchdog organization would be better informed.
What Christine Douglass-Williams wrote was 100% accurate. See, for
example, these articles: https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Minister-Erdan-The-UN-serves-as-the-Hamas-Foreign-Office-547688 and https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-agency-no-longer-employing-gaza-staffer-accused-of-hamas-ties/ and https://www.jta.org/2017/10/29/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/hamas-terror-tunnel-discovered-under-un-school-in-gaza and https://www.unwatch.org/130-page-report-unrwa-teachers-incite-terrorism-antisemitism/
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.
Your responses will be noted. My apologies about the non-working link in #2, this was the story I was referencing:
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.
There is nothing inaccurate about that headline. They did tweet
Chattanooga soon after the attack. I expect you are unaware that this
was a jihad attack inspired by foreign jihadis — see this AP story: https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/16/navy-concludes-chattanooga-shooting-was-inspired-by-foreign-terrorists/
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
- Which do you think is the larger problem: jihad terror or “Islamophobia”?
- 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?
- Does NewsGuard plan to assess the reliability of sites that reflect the Leftist agenda, or only sites that oppose that agenda?
- 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.
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.
Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270742/steven-brills-newsguard-and-fact-checking-scam-robert-spencer
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment