Featured Video Play Icon

Commentary ~ NewsGuard Rating Process of C-VINE (Part II)

­This video and article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.

by Linda Forsythe ~ January 24, 2023

The following is Part II of the rating process toward C-VINE from NewsGuard that we are making public. Every email NewsGuard sends to us expecting answers to their questions, will be published along with our answers.

Part I can be viewed here for additional context:  https://c-vine.com/blog/gtmo-and-911-content-on-c-vine-is-being-rated-by-newsguardtech-will-we-survive-watch-the-process/

A video recording of the Roundtable discussion about this will be added to our report after completed. (UPDATE: Video Roundtable now attached to this report).

For the time being, the 2nd email mentioned between NewsGuard and C-VINE Response is copied and pasted below for your reference as a continuation of Part I.

~~~ Linda Forsythe

Hi Ms. Forsythe,

Thank you for your thoughtful responses. A few things:
1.) NEWSGUARD: Regarding the editors…it’s true that our criterion for this actually refers to “who’s in charge,” of the website. In the vast majority of cases, those tend to be editors, but if you have no editors, naming the person in charge of content would likely suffice. Or, noting on the site that C-VINE.com has no editors/no one in charge would also likely suffice.

C-VINE RESPONSE: The Website and intellectual property is INSIDE the IRREVOCABLE Trust which belongs to We the People. Volunteers come in by way of a proverbial revolving door and decisions are made with group concensus.  Individual articles have author attribution. We will take your advice and post your suggestion.

2.) NEWSGUARD: Regarding the article titled “Commentary ~ 9/11 Saudi Arabian hijacker Hani Hanjour, piloted American Airlines 77 into the Pentagon, but was Denied Rental of a Single Engine Cessna 1 Month Before b/c of Flight Incompetence,” you noted that the part I highlighted comes not from your team at C-VINE, but from the email author. However, it’s our view at NewsGuard that a site is responsible for the accuracy of all of the content that it publishes, regardless of where it comes from or if it appears in commentary.

C-VINE RESPONSE: Your statement in number 3 below answers your question here in #2 on how these discussions are conducted according to your own rules. We have made it clear the C-VINE 9/11 Court of Public Opinion is a Roundtable, discussion and debate that includes a video recording of the discussion. Each Roundtable has a main topic and the issue being discussed. INCLUDING, when we are disputing official government reports and narratives. The written report is a teaser to the video recording of the actual Roundtable and contains in this case the email being discussed for public reference and study guide. There is more too this I’ve already answered, so will request a little more due diligence on your part. I feel like I’m repeating my answers.

Please look at the bottom of the website for the disclaimer on the C-VINE content being for educational purposes as follows:
In short ~ We are already following your criteria and will gladly make adjustments where needed, but C-VINE WILL continue our discussions,  debates and reports on the C-VINE website which is our Constitutional Right.
3.) NEWSGUARD: To answer your other question — of course the Constitution allows Americans to question the government and express our opinions publicly. At NewsGuard, our focus is on a claim’s accuracy, which can include relevant context, including the acknowledgement of countervailing evidence.

C-VINE Response: Thank you for the clarification.  In past years, Newguard did not allow discussions or debate that disagreed with government reports in exactly the way you just described. If it disagreed, it was deemed “misinformation”.  We even removed some reports you pointed out. To no avail. NewsGuard ratings are distributed widely to Big Tech, Social Media and many others which censored and muzzled our disagreements due specifically to NewsGuard ratings.

In fact some of our discussions have since proven to be officially factual that were originally declared false by NewsGuard. What is NewsGuard policy about correcting past ratings and providing reparations for the damage caused? Just curious.
That being said and most importantly… In the past, NewsGuard has held to the belief that government agency tenants have the last say of final authority for facts. Eg: CDC, AMA, NIST etc.
But, with that being said… C-VINE has observed NewsGuard cherry picking their targets for ratings and blatantly ignoring those who are putting out false News in direct violation of a government agency report or regulation. Following are a few examples for context although I have hundreds.
In this case, I will focus on 9/11 and GTMO content, utilizing official regulations of the (OMC) Office of Military Commissions, since that is what C-VINE is focusing on now.
There are a number of news reports with large followings that are blatantly false, but are NEVER called out by NewsGuard or any rating agency. These specific reports tout about various political leaders, government representatives or Hollywood celebrities being detained, tried or even executed in GTMO.
It has caused mass confusion where a number of the public falsely believes that GTMO is a “be all – end all” dumping ground for anything treasonous. They also believe tribunals have been going on with American Citizens for some time.  Why do they think that? Because NewsGuard or other fact checking/rating agencies has NEVER addressed it, corrected it, or called it out.
Why is that?
In case NewsGuard  isn’t aware, US Citizens can be tried in Military Tribunals under certain circumstances… but NEVER GTMO. We are talking about jurisdiction and geography here. Just like there are different types of court systems in the US.
Following my attribution to OMC laws and regulations here… I will give just a few news links with millions of followers for context.

The following OMC Regulations was sent to me from the Office of Military Commissions (Ron Flesvig), as the Rule of Law on who can be detained, tried, and or prosecuted at GTMO.

The specifics of jurisdiction (who can be tried at Guantanamo) below, from MMC 219 Edition:

From Rule 202 – (a) In general. Any alien unprivileged enemy belligerent is subject to trial by military
commission under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code.

DEFINITION UNDER Rule 103 (a) (1): “Alien” means an individual who is not a citizen of the United States.

DEFINITION UNDER Rule 103 (a)  (29) “Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent” means an individual (other than a privileged
belligerent) who—
(A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners;
(B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under chapter 47A of
title 10, United States Code.

Ronald E. Flesvig
Office of Military Commissions – Convening Authority
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 11F09-02
Alexandria, VA 22350-2100

(End OMC Quote)
Here are just a few of the false news report links. There are hundreds of others (no exaggeration) specifically talking about Americans in GTMO. If you want a larger report, I will be happy to send it. The OMC has also been keeping track.
Many look forward to your response…
Example #1:
(Note: Real Raw News has been a habitual offender for years).
C-VINE wrote a report on this one particular piece here that included an OMC statement agreement about RRN being false: https://c-vine.com/blog/is-clinton-being-tried-in-gtmo-office-of-military-commission-responds-to-c-vine/

by Linda Forsythe ~ C-VINE Volunteer & Founder

Newsguard questioning by Valerie Pavilonis

Staff Analyst, NewsGuard Technologies


News Stories Researched and Posted by our Team of Volunteer Citizen Journalists