Opinion | Trump’s Picks Claim I’m Muzzling Conservatives — In Response, They Seek to Silence Me
The accountability of journalists lies with their readers rather than government censors.
TroibNews 
Last week, The Washington Post published an article highlighting how NewsGuard, an organization whose journalists assess the reliability of news sources, has become a focal point for incoming regulators from the Trump administration and far-right Republicans in Congress. They are alleging that my colleagues and I are part of a left-wing conspiracy—referred to as a “cartel” by the new chairs of both the FCC and the FTC—aimed at censoring conservative websites and their social media and video platforms.
In reality, our mission is to equip consumers and businesses with journalist evaluations of the professional standards of thousands of news websites, using apolitical, journalistic factors to assign reliability scores—criteria that include accuracy, transparent correction policies, and honest headlines. Advertisers, for instance, rely on these ratings to ensure their digital ads do not appear alongside Russian disinformation, health care hoaxes, or other damaging content. Consumers who use our browser extension can also view these ratings when they access articles or scroll through feeds on platforms like Facebook and X.
In the Post article, the reporters included a chart with our 0-100 point ratings for a sample of 20 news outlets. It clearly shows that we assign both high and low ratings to liberal and conservative sites, as our nine rating criteria are not based on political ideology. After all, is there a liberal or conservative method for having a transparent policy for error correction or for crafting headlines that accurately reflect the content of a story?
One of our criteria assesses whether a website frequently publishes provably false or grossly misleading information. Consequently, the incoming FCC chair, Brendan Carr, criticized the “Orwellian named NewsGuard” for proclaiming itself to be the “Internet arbiter of truth.”
Lately, it has become a common refrain that there can be no definitive “arbiter of truth”—that no entity can claim to know or dictate what is true. This perspective is misguided. When journalists perform their job with professionalism, that is indeed their responsibility.
There is an objective truth regarding whether Hank Aaron died as a result of a Covid vaccine: he did not. This is not an opinion; it is a fact. Therefore, we deducted points from the ratings of health care hoax sites that inaccurately reported that the baseball legend died due to the vaccine. Similarly, there is a factual answer to whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy misused U.S. funds for luxury shopping—he did not. Additionally, the Republicans’ Project 2025 did not advocate for cuts to Social Security, despite claims made by Kamala Harris in her campaign speeches.
While the chart in the Post validating our work as nonpartisan was gratifying, it also troubled me deeply.
It distressed me because it served as a necessary response to the accusations from incoming regulators that we are politically biased and need regulation. We encouraged the Post reporters to independently evaluate whether our ratings demonstrated any political leanings. However, the need to defend our integrity in light of these officials’ claims—and the threats they posed—was what kept me awake at night.
Journalists should always be ready and willing to defend their work to their audience, but not to the government. In America, that principle should be sacrosanct.
Our accountability lies with our readers and the subjects of our reporting, ensuring that we uphold our commitment to impartiality and fairness. We are transparent about our evaluations of over 10,000 publishers globally. We make it a practice to seek comments from publishers before publishing any negative assessments, investigate complaints thoroughly, and correct any errors we may make.
If we fail in our commitment to fairness, we deserve to fail as a business. Competitors could rise in our place, and publishers we rate poorly could stand as evidence against us. Users of our data could choose not to rely on third-party evaluators like us.
However, in this country, journalists should never have to justify their work to government regulators. This principle should unite us as Americans. Aside from rare exceptions like national security, the government should not judge content or attempt to suppress it.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring our work or the work of anyone claiming to be a journalist, regardless of their political affiliations. While I may not have the liberty to defame someone, that is a matter for a jury, not for a regulator taking cues from a disgruntled political faction. It is the responsibility of readers to decide whom to trust, and it is up to me to earn that trust.
What I should not have to do is write a letter—like the one my partner Gordon Crovitz and I recently did—advocating for NewsGuard to the incoming FCC chair, who has threatened action against us. We detailed our impartiality, emphasizing Gordon’s background as a longtime conservative and former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, contrasted against my history as a journalist who has criticized both liberal and conservative figures.
I found it disheartening to defend my journalism against a regulator's overreach, imploring him to see that I am fair. Such a defense should not have been necessary and felt like a concession to principles that would empower our interrogators to intimidate others.
Last year, a Republican-led congressional committee demanded extensive documentation for an investigation into NewsGuard prompted by OANN, a far-right outlet that was displeased with its lower ratings compared to Fox News. Following the advice of our late lawyer, Ted Olson, we should have outright refused the committee’s demands; he believed firmly that we were not obligated to explain our operations. However, we complied, providing the requested information along with a lengthy cover letter asserting our neutrality.
OANN, which instigated the investigation, even aired a special interview with the committee chair about this inquiry.
Both OANN and Newsmax—the latter also pushing for these probes—have repeatedly labeled me a “longtime Democratic activist” or “operative.” I recall participating in a Zoom call last year with committee staff, trying to clarify that the only political figure I worked for was a Republican mayor while in law school. I even disclosed that as the publisher of The American Lawyer, I was responsible for the first article that acknowledged the legitimacy of the Paula Jones sexual harassment claim against President Bill Clinton, which sparked the impeachment inquiry related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Encountering such a humbling experience left me questioning my integrity. I have the right to practice journalism without facing interrogation by government officials under the threat of extensive investigations.
Newsmax and OANN can freely critique NewsGuard and do so vigorously. However, they should not have the power to enlist the government’s help in those efforts. No government official should ever align themselves with such a cause while in office.
Perhaps we should have demonstrated the resolve that Ted Olson advised.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
In reality, our mission is to equip consumers and businesses with journalist evaluations of the professional standards of thousands of news websites, using apolitical, journalistic factors to assign reliability scores—criteria that include accuracy, transparent correction policies, and honest headlines. Advertisers, for instance, rely on these ratings to ensure their digital ads do not appear alongside Russian disinformation, health care hoaxes, or other damaging content. Consumers who use our browser extension can also view these ratings when they access articles or scroll through feeds on platforms like Facebook and X.
In the Post article, the reporters included a chart with our 0-100 point ratings for a sample of 20 news outlets. It clearly shows that we assign both high and low ratings to liberal and conservative sites, as our nine rating criteria are not based on political ideology. After all, is there a liberal or conservative method for having a transparent policy for error correction or for crafting headlines that accurately reflect the content of a story?
One of our criteria assesses whether a website frequently publishes provably false or grossly misleading information. Consequently, the incoming FCC chair, Brendan Carr, criticized the “Orwellian named NewsGuard” for proclaiming itself to be the “Internet arbiter of truth.”
Lately, it has become a common refrain that there can be no definitive “arbiter of truth”—that no entity can claim to know or dictate what is true. This perspective is misguided. When journalists perform their job with professionalism, that is indeed their responsibility.
There is an objective truth regarding whether Hank Aaron died as a result of a Covid vaccine: he did not. This is not an opinion; it is a fact. Therefore, we deducted points from the ratings of health care hoax sites that inaccurately reported that the baseball legend died due to the vaccine. Similarly, there is a factual answer to whether Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy misused U.S. funds for luxury shopping—he did not. Additionally, the Republicans’ Project 2025 did not advocate for cuts to Social Security, despite claims made by Kamala Harris in her campaign speeches.
While the chart in the Post validating our work as nonpartisan was gratifying, it also troubled me deeply.
It distressed me because it served as a necessary response to the accusations from incoming regulators that we are politically biased and need regulation. We encouraged the Post reporters to independently evaluate whether our ratings demonstrated any political leanings. However, the need to defend our integrity in light of these officials’ claims—and the threats they posed—was what kept me awake at night.
Journalists should always be ready and willing to defend their work to their audience, but not to the government. In America, that principle should be sacrosanct.
Our accountability lies with our readers and the subjects of our reporting, ensuring that we uphold our commitment to impartiality and fairness. We are transparent about our evaluations of over 10,000 publishers globally. We make it a practice to seek comments from publishers before publishing any negative assessments, investigate complaints thoroughly, and correct any errors we may make.
If we fail in our commitment to fairness, we deserve to fail as a business. Competitors could rise in our place, and publishers we rate poorly could stand as evidence against us. Users of our data could choose not to rely on third-party evaluators like us.
However, in this country, journalists should never have to justify their work to government regulators. This principle should unite us as Americans. Aside from rare exceptions like national security, the government should not judge content or attempt to suppress it.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring our work or the work of anyone claiming to be a journalist, regardless of their political affiliations. While I may not have the liberty to defame someone, that is a matter for a jury, not for a regulator taking cues from a disgruntled political faction. It is the responsibility of readers to decide whom to trust, and it is up to me to earn that trust.
What I should not have to do is write a letter—like the one my partner Gordon Crovitz and I recently did—advocating for NewsGuard to the incoming FCC chair, who has threatened action against us. We detailed our impartiality, emphasizing Gordon’s background as a longtime conservative and former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, contrasted against my history as a journalist who has criticized both liberal and conservative figures.
I found it disheartening to defend my journalism against a regulator's overreach, imploring him to see that I am fair. Such a defense should not have been necessary and felt like a concession to principles that would empower our interrogators to intimidate others.
Last year, a Republican-led congressional committee demanded extensive documentation for an investigation into NewsGuard prompted by OANN, a far-right outlet that was displeased with its lower ratings compared to Fox News. Following the advice of our late lawyer, Ted Olson, we should have outright refused the committee’s demands; he believed firmly that we were not obligated to explain our operations. However, we complied, providing the requested information along with a lengthy cover letter asserting our neutrality.
OANN, which instigated the investigation, even aired a special interview with the committee chair about this inquiry.
Both OANN and Newsmax—the latter also pushing for these probes—have repeatedly labeled me a “longtime Democratic activist” or “operative.” I recall participating in a Zoom call last year with committee staff, trying to clarify that the only political figure I worked for was a Republican mayor while in law school. I even disclosed that as the publisher of The American Lawyer, I was responsible for the first article that acknowledged the legitimacy of the Paula Jones sexual harassment claim against President Bill Clinton, which sparked the impeachment inquiry related to his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Encountering such a humbling experience left me questioning my integrity. I have the right to practice journalism without facing interrogation by government officials under the threat of extensive investigations.
Newsmax and OANN can freely critique NewsGuard and do so vigorously. However, they should not have the power to enlist the government’s help in those efforts. No government official should ever align themselves with such a cause while in office.
Perhaps we should have demonstrated the resolve that Ted Olson advised.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
