“The Internet had the great characteristic of allowing everybody to be a publisher, but that was also the worst thing; everybody could become a publisher. From the point of view of news consumers, that meant it had become virtually impossible for people to tell the difference between a generally reliable … and generally trustworthy site, versus an untrustworthy site.”

– Gordon Crovitz, NewsGuard

Guest: Gordon Crovitz, NewsGuard

What are the dangers of an open Web where anyone can be a publisher? How do misinformation sites harm reputable news publishers? How are current economic and geopolitical conditions impacting the online information ecosystem? What is a News Nutrition Label and, if consumers can’t tell the difference, how are publishers of quality journalism distinguished from misinformation, hoax and pink slime news sites? How has programmatic advertising contributed to the misinformation crisis and how can advertisers ensure site integrity when buying ad space? 

In the Season 2 premiere of News Take, News/Media Alliance VP, Research & Insights, Rebecca Frank sits down with Gordon Crovitz, co-founder and co-CEO of NewsGuard, about how his company is working to mitigate threats from online misinformation sites, which are often indistinguishable from real news sites. Gordon explains how the online environment has enabled the rampant spread of fake news and mis- and disinformation via hoax, pink slime and other sites that publish false and potentially harmful misinformation. He then shares how publishers, consumers, advertisers and other businesses, and government agencies can improve their awareness and identification of these sites to minimize their impact. In addition, he describes how news publishers can use NewsGuard’s Nutrition Labels to promote their credibility, both with readers as sources of accurate and trustworthy information, as well as with marketers as brand safe environments for their advertising.

Listen or download the audio file to listen offline:

Don’t forget to subscribe to the News Take podcast by clicking “Follow” and selecting your preferred podcasting platform, or click on your preferred platform: Spotify, Apple, Google.

Watch with video:

Speaker bios

Gordon Crovitz is co-founder and Co-CEO of NewsGuard, which counters misinformation online on behalf of news consumers, brands and democracies. NewsGuard analysts rate and create Nutrition Labels for news and information websites, using basic, apolitical criteria of journalistic practice. Its ratings and labels are used by news-literacy partners including technology companies such as Microsoft and libraries, schools and misinformation researchers.

Gordon was publisher of The Wall Street Journal, where he was also the Rule of Law and Information Age columnist, and spent nearly 30 years at Dow Jones and the Journal, based in New York, Hong Kong and Brussels. He was CEO of learning company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. He was co-founder of Press+ (sold to RR Donnelley), a technology company that enables publishers to generate digital subscription revenues. Crovitz graduated from the University of Chicago and received law degrees from Oxford University and Yale Law School.

Related Links:

Get NewsGuard for Microsoft Edge 

Watch the next episode: How the American Press Institute is Inspiring Cultural Transformation in News Media

Watch the previous episode: Lessons in Practicality from The Daily Memphian: “A Lot of People Don’t Know We’re a Nonprofit”

View all episodes

Send us your suggestions

Send your suggestions for future News Take guests to Alliance VP, Research & Insights Rebecca Frank at rebecca@newsmediaalliance.org.

News Take Production Team:

Host and Executive Producer: Rebecca Frank, VP, Research & Insights, News/Media Alliance

Production Support, Editing & Distribution:

Georgi-Ann Clarke, Social Media & Content Manager, News/Media Alliance
Rachel Fox, Manager, Membership & Events, News/Media Alliance
Lindsey Loving, Director, Communications, News/Media Alliance

Audio & Video Engineer: Current Media Group

Back to top

The post News Take Episode 201: News Nutrition Labels: How NewsGuard is Helping Fight Misinformation Online appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

anyaberkut / iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images

Building the technology that underpins the online advertising ecosystem is a lucrative business. The two largest online advertising companies, Alphabet and Meta (parent companies of Google and Facebook, respectively) are also some of the most valuable companies that have ever existed. But many other companies have found success in the ad tech market, earning money by inserting themselves into advertising transactions that once took place between only advertisers and publishers. However, three recent developments suggest that ad tech – which already has many known flaws – may be negatively impacting publishers even more than previously understood.

The black box of ad technology, particularly “brand safety” tech, has long been suspected to cause harm by needlessly scaring advertisers away from supporting news with their ad buys. We now have even more insight into the harm caused to advertisers and publishers by these unscrupulous middlemen, supporting our previous call for advertisers to walk away from this system.

The first notable finding centers on the fees siphoned away from publishers. Research conducted by Adalytics found that the fees taken by the “supply chain” range from 22-45 percent, with an average of 35 percent of ad dollars taken from publishers. In some extreme cases, demand-side and supply-side platforms (DSPs and SSPs) take 98 percent of an advertiser’s spend, leaving a mere two percent for publishers. The study also highlights how in the complex, auction-based system, some SSPs deliberately take a loss on some bids, “juicing their overall win rate.” Publishers are trapped in a system controlled by companies with few motives beyond winning, so that they can continue to take their cut on sales.

Even ad tech companies that claim to be looking out for advertisers and publishers do not seem to be acting honestly. “Brand safety” companies prey on advertisers’ concerns about where their ads will run, providing little benefit to brands while cutting off publishers from revenue that could be reinvested into newsgathering and distribution by encouraging keyword blocking. A joint statement from the News Media Alliance and Digital Content Next in 2020 explained:

Fact-based, reliable journalism supports the online ecosystem by providing readers with invaluable information and advertisers with high-quality content and access to these readers. Keyword blocking threatens this symbiotic relationship at the worst possible time.

This threat made it more difficult for news organizations to report on Covid-19 and the January 6 riots, and will make it more difficult in the face of hostilities in Ukraine.

Beyond harming news publishers, many brand safety tools don’t even do what they promise. On March 8, The Wall Street Journal reported that Gannett inadvertently reported inaccurate information about the location of ad placements to its advertisers. In a fully programmatic and machine-led marketplace, no individual advertiser can see every live ad, and reporting is vital for their tracking. However, Gannett’s error – which was widely agreed to not be malicious or fraudulent – highlights another flaw in the system. “Brand safety” companies sell tools and earn money from advertisers and publishers on the promise of avoiding just this type of mistake through careful monitoring and reporting. However, the brand safety trackers failed to flag this issue for months. As Matt Rogerson, head of public policy at Guardian Media Group tweeted:

Question from a dummy: if Gannett was doing this in error, what’s to stop far end of web sites from feeding the same data into the ecosystem? Similarly, if the ecosystem not catching these errors re Gannett, how can we believe they are catching them for bad actors?

— Matt Rogerson (@MattRogerson) March 10, 2022

Implicit in his question was why these companies should earn millions of dollars.

The brand safety companies – while not doing what they claim to – have found new ways to drain value from publishers. A March 10 report in Morning Brew details an additional form of abuse – ad tech companies scraping publisher data and selling contextual advertising segments based on it without permission. Contextual advertising – where the content of the story matters more than the reader’s data profile – is seen as one potential way for publishers to earn back some control in the marketplace with the disappearance of audience-based cookies. This scraping is, according to the trade groups quoted by Morning Brew, “not only a violation of publisher terms and conditions, but also the potential infringement of basic intellectual property rights.” Publishers seemingly can’t win, even with their own assets.

The harm that ad tech companies cause to publishers is now clearer than ever. They take away publishers’ ability to earn enough on advertisements to support the expensive, important work of gathering and sharing real news, waste their dollars with fraud and sell useless “safety” tools that don’t make things safer. And in an age when disinformation is rampant online and information warfare is fueling actual war in Ukraine, choosing to support real news outlets directly and advertising alongside high-quality news can literally save lives.

The post Ad Tech: It’s Worse Than We Thought appeared first on News/Media Alliance.

golibo / iStock/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images

This post originally appeared on Medium. Click here to view the full article.

Disinformation and trust in news were key drivers of the tragic riots that took place on January 6, 2021 at the U.S. Capitol. But as the crisis unfolded, advertisers paused many of their online ads, including those running alongside news content, a practice that ramped up during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is understandable that brands would pause ads in order not to appear insensitive, but advertisers’ continued fear of bad news events is having a negative impact on publishers beyond social and digital media and can be linked to the spread of violent, dangerous disinformation and lies.

Read the full post on Medium.

The post Flaws in Ad Tech Contribute to False Perceptions of Brand Safety, Ad Blocking, and Disinformation appeared first on News/Media Alliance.