As government oversight intensifies over Big Tech’s control of online speech, last week’s House Judiciary Committee report and subsequent hearing shed light on the secretive practices impacting conservative news outlets. The focus was squarely on how these outlets are being denied advertising revenue by being placed on clandestine blacklists, highlighting a significant problem that continues to stifle diverse voices in the media landscape.
For decades, Silicon Valley companies like Facebook and Google have quietly rated news publishers, often collaborating with left-wing advocacy groups such as the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). These reviews are done with little transparency, leaving publishers in the dark about the criteria used and the results of these ratings when requested. This covert censorship mechanism has contributed significantly to the marginalization of conservative voices, as opaque standards and secretive procedures choke off revenue streams critical for their operation.
In response, NewsGuard was co-founded in 2018, aiming to counteract this bias by adopting a transparent, apolitical approach. Unlike its counterparts, NewsGuard rates websites using nine disclosed criteria of journalistic practice, such as the disclosure of ownership and the distinction between news and opinion. Engaging directly with publishers, NewsGuard has successfully encouraged many to meet higher standards, thus increasing their ratings. Remarkably, many conservative sites have received high trust scores, debunking claims that conservative media inherently lacks credibility.
During the hearing, conservative news sites’ trustworthiness was questioned. However, evidence was presented showing that a significant number of right-wing and libertarian news outlets are deemed brand-safe for advertisers, challenging the narrative that these platforms are more prone to spreading misinformation. Publications like Fox News, the New York Post, and National Review were highlighted as examples of news sources that maintain high standards of journalism despite their conservative leanings.
This starkly contrasts the GDI’s exclusion list, from which many conservative sites suffer unfair exclusion. These arbitrary blacklists are part of a broader strategy to undermine conservative media by controlling advertising revenue. Such practices suppress free speech and limit the diversity of viewpoints available to the public. This committee hearing exposed the unfair targeting of conservative websites while confirming that more conservative sites receive higher ratings from NewsGuard than their liberal counterparts, underlining biased censorship that reduces the variety of news accessible to American audiences.
The hearing also addressed the wider implications of restrictive ad revenue distribution. The GroupM advertising agency revealed that a paltry 1.28% of brand advertising currently goes to online news sites. This decline in revenue has dire implications for newsrooms nationwide, many of which are already experiencing significant downsizing. The over-reliance on “programmatic advertising” algorithms, which indiscriminately place ads regardless of content, further exacerbates this issue. It was noted that this method inadvertently funnels billions of dollars to misinformation websites, including foreign propaganda outlets, while reliable news sources struggle financially.
The testimony exemplified this issue with instances of significant ad spending on misinformation sites by major corporations. For example, Warren Buffett’s Geico unintentionally spent millions on Russian propaganda site Sputnik News via programmatic ads. Additionally, TikTok accounts were identified for propagating fabricated stories about conservative figures, further illustrating the misallocation of advertising resources.
The minimal allocation of advertising revenue to genuine news sites represents a crisis transcending political affiliations. Responsible advertisers must make a concerted effort to rely on apolitical standards and inclusion lists, which could help redirect necessary funds back to trustworthy news sites across the political spectrum. This vital shift would ensure the survival of diverse, reliable journalistic sources, fostering a more balanced and informed public discourse.
As these revelations come to light, staunch advocacy for free speech and press diversity becomes increasingly clear for the health of our democratic society. Ensuring a level playing field for all news outlets, especially those offering conservative perspectives, is crucial in maintaining a fair and balanced media environment that serves the public interest. The findings from this hearing underscore the need for ethical oversight and accountability in digital advertising practices to protect the integrity of our information ecosystem.
Liberty requires eternal vigilance. That's why we work hard to deliver news about issues that threaten your liberty.
