The podcast delves into the influence of 'ratings agencies' on controlling media conversation and ad revenue, with a focus on Global Disinformation Index. It questions the subjectivity and impact of these judgments on media companies, raising concerns about press freedom and democracy in the digital age.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Ratings agencies like the GDI control media conversation through ad revenue manipulation, impacting free expression and diverse viewpoints.
The GDI's broad definition of disinformation risks stifling journalistic challenges and alternative viewpoints, raising concerns over First Amendment rights.
Deep dives
Uncovering Worldwide System of Censorship
Despite originally seeking to include ads on their website, the podcast encountered a system of censorship involving organizations like the Global Disinformation Index, impacting the advertising revenue potential. The GDI labeled the podcast as anti-LGBTQI and anti-trans due to hosting dissenting voices, triggering concerns about free expression and diverse viewpoints being stifled.
Evolution of Disinformation and Consequences
Disinformation emerged as a prominent concept during influential events like Trump's election and Brexit, then surged further during the Covid era. The redefinition of disinformation to include adversarial narratives has led to organizations like the GDI targeting various publications based on perceived content. This broad approach risks stifling journalistic challenges and alternative viewpoints critical for societal discourse.
Challenges with GDI and Call for Awareness
The Global Disinformation Index, funded by various government entities, faces backlash for its biased categorization of websites, creating legal disputes and concerns over First Amendment rights. The organization's widened definition of disinformation to include adversarial narratives raises questions about their authority in determining truth. Encouraging diverse advertising strategies and fostering open dialogue are suggested to combat undue influence and polarization.
The verdicts of “ratings agencies” such as the GDI, within the complex machinery that serves online ads, are a little-understood mechanism for controlling the media conversation. In UnHerd’s case, the GDI verdict means that we only received between 2% and 6% of the ad revenue normally expected for an audience of our size. Meanwhile, neatly demonstrating the arbitrariness and subjectivity of these judgements, Newsguard, a rival ratings agency, gives UnHerd a 92.5% trust rating, just ahead of the New York Times at 87.5%.
So, what are these “ratings agencies” that could be the difference between life and death for a media company? How does their influence work? And who funds them? The answers are concerning and raise serious questions about the freedom of the press and the viability of a functioning democracy in the internet age.