On Wednesday’s edition of Chris Hayes – All in on MSNBC, the show’s namesake host welcomed Nina Jankowicz, who resigned from the paused Disinformation Governance Board. Jankowicz and Hayes both lamented that the DGB was victim to misinformation, which they would try to fight even though Hayes acknowledged that there were problems.
In introducing Jankowicz, Hayes declared, “But almost immediately after the announcement, a right-wing frenzy ensued helped along I think by the vaguely ominous title of the office, and she found herself on the receiving end of a concerted campaign by the very same forces disinformation her office would face now attacking her and undermining her credibility with wild conspiracy theories and lies.”
Jankowicz in turn decried “all these sensationalist narratives” about the board and that all it was meant to do was help DHS’s subordinate agencies combat misinformation from the likes of China or Iran, “And frankly, it’s kind of ironic that the board itself was taken over by disinformation when it was meant to fight it.”
Hayes did, however, become self-aware for a short time.
Let me just say, to give you the alternative view, that was when I was actually watching it unfold. I kind of ran this experiment about how I felt back then, in 2005 under Bush. This was the title that Bush’s administration announced. And they had appointed someone that I thought was, you know, a Republican or conservative and, you know, it felt like OK, well, here’s the use of the state, right, state power to patrol speech, were to claim things or disinformation that they don’t like. What do you tell people who say that, even though your intentions may have been good or that this was just bureaucratic? That even entering the zone can cause some alarms that aren’t crazy for those that care about such things.
That would seem like a good reason to not create the thing in the first place or at least put someone who isn’t a liberal partisan who has spread foreign disinformation herself in charge in charge.
Jankowicz repeated that the DGB was never set up to police speech, only that “I think, you know, it is important that our government get involved when we have real threats to our national security.”
Later, the duo concluded by lamenting the response not just to the board, but Jankowicz herself with Hayes wondering, “What was the experience of being the focal point of this sort of like, massive frenzy like over the last few weeks?”
Jankowicz reiterated her previous claims, “I have prided myself over my career of being a really nuanced, reasonable person… to say that I’m just a partisan actor was wildly out of context” and “beyond that, it wasn’t just, you know, these mischaracterizations of my work, but it was death threats against my family.”
Jankowicz might try to disguise her liberalism. Hayes, however, should have stuck with 2005 instincts.
This segment was sponsored and produced by Philadelphia.
The transcript of the May 18, 2018 show is available here:
MSNBC Chris Hayes – All in
5/18/2022
8:52 AM ET
CHRIS HAYES, April saw the Department of Homeland Security announce the establishment of a disinformation governance panel. It would be an entity to work to combat the very real dangerous issue of disinformation online and elsewhere with a stated goal to “coordinate countering misinformation related to Homeland Security.” The woman appointed to lead that effort is a woman named Nina Jankowicz. She’s a former Disinformation Fellow at the Wilson Center, and the author of the book How to Lose the Information War, which is about international relations and disinformation.
The announcement was followed by a right-wing panic, possibly helped by the title. Soon, she was the victim of a coordinated campaign of disinformation by those same forces attacking her office. They also attempted to undermine her credibility by spreading conspiracy theories and lying. DHS had to cancel yesterday’s announcement of the creation of the office. Nina Jankowicz has resubmitted her resignation. She joins me tonight for her first interview on television. We are grateful for your presence. Let’s start from the ground. What was that thing announced about?
NINA JANKOWICZ (NINA): It was exactly as you stated it. The sensationalist stories about the board and the things it did are totally wrong. It served as a coordination mechanism. It was designed to make sure the Department of Homeland Security (a large agency) had people talking to one another within its walls.
Let me now give you an illustration. FEMA is the federal agency which handles environmental and disaster issues. It would counter any misinformation regarding natural disasters. And let’s say, a foreign adversary like Iran or China, perhaps, would put out a narrative that says, oh, you know, here’s how you get out of this city, or here’s where you can find disaster aid. This could place people in danger and put their lives at risk. That’s the sort of disinformation and misinformation that we were looking to support the department in addressing to make sure that they had best practices, and most importantly, to protect Americans’ freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties and privacy while we were doing all of that work. So, every characterization of the board that you’ve heard up until now has been incorrect. And frankly, it’s kind of ironic that the board itself was taken over by disinformation when it was meant to fight it.
HAYES. So to put the other side in perspective, I saw this happen and as it was developing, I started to think about what I might feel back under Bush’s administration. This was the title that Bush’s administration announced. And they had appointed someone that I thought was, you know, a Republican or conservative and, you know, it felt like OK, well, here’s the use of the state, right, state power to patrol speech, were to claim things or disinformation that they don’t like.
You might ask, “Look, even if you had good intentions or this was bureaucratic,” if someone says, “Look, even stepping in the zone poses some non crazy alarms for people concerned about this kind of thing.
JANKOWICZ: Well, I fully understand Americans concerns that they don’t want government involved in policing speech. And good news, this initiative wasn’t involved in policing speech, and neither was I. I think, you know, it is important that our government get involved when we have real threats to our national security.
So, it’s not just things like election interference, which we’ve seen in which DHS has combated also, but threats at the border, disinformation that is driving people to migrate here, disinformation that could affect critical infrastructure, like our financial systems and gas pipelines. This has real consequences for Americans’ safety. And frankly, I think DHS and other federal agencies need to be involved because this problem isn’t going away. It’s only getting worse.
HAYES: Well, here’s — so, let’s talk about combat because I think that word is interesting, right? Like, what does that mean, tangibly, right, if — when you say combat disinformation, because obviously we’re having an incredibly intense meta debate about speech and platforms, regulation and moderation there, you know, of them. So, what is — what is your vision or what would the board’s vision or anyone’s vision from a government perspective be to combat disinformation?
DHS: DHS’s work for more than ten years is mainly about getting good information to the public. For example, the information on where Americans can go for disaster relief, how to vote in America, and whether or not there is a border that’s closed. So, that’s one thing that I had hoped that we would do and I’m also — I’ve spent a lot of my career, you know, testifying both before Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle advising foreign governments about how to build resilience in populations. People need the tools to navigate today’s information environment. It’s incredibly overwhelming and so, I had hoped that we would do some creative programs to equip people with the tools they need to find that information in today’s information environment, not to say what was true or false. It was never my intention.
HAYES: I have one more question about this. Then, I would like to inquire about your personal experience. But what’s — how is disinformation — I’m sorry. How is disinformation as a category different than just stuff that’s wrong, right? Because sometimes I think that term itself, like, it’s a little bit of a fuzzy boundary, right? People are often wrong about many things. There’s lots of wrong stuff online. There’s wrong stuff said by people that I love. What is disinformation? How is that different from the wrong stuff?
JANKOWICZ: Yes, that’s a great question and something that often is mischaracterized as well. Information that is misleading or false and spreads with malicious intent is called disinformation. So, that’s when we have those bad actors are our foreign adversaries like China, Iran, maybe Russia spreading that stuff.
Misinformation is also harmful, but it’s when you know, Aunt Sally or Uncle John are spreading those rumors or conspiracy theories at the dinner table. It can have effects on people’s livelihoods and safety as well. Again, our focus was on disinformation. This disinformation is spread with malicious intent. And that wasn’t anything to do with politics. This is where the disinformation crossed the line between Homeland Security and safety for the American people.
HAYES: That’s — I think, it’s actually a really useful definitional distinction precisely to sort of put those at odds. We have approximately 90 seconds remaining. In my entire public life, this has been repeated many times. Van Jones when he was at the position of the White House, he was run out of office because he’d signed some petition and Shirley Sherrod who was an officer of the U.S. Department of Agriculture who said something wildly taken out of context. What was it like to be the center of such a massive frenzy over the past few weeks?
JANKOWICZ – It was overwhelming Chris. You know what, Chris? I’m proud to have been a reasonable, nuanced person over the course of my career. Again, as I said, I’ve briefed and advised both Republicans and Democrats. Some of the actions taken by the Trump Administration to counter disinformation are admirable, such as Senator Rob Portman’s bills against deep falses, and funding for the Global Engagement Center, State Department.
So, to say that I’m just a partisan actor was wildly out of context. And then beyond that, it wasn’t just, you know, these mischaracterizations of my work, but it was death threats against my family. Over the last three weeks, I have had maybe had one or two days I didn’t report a violent threat, something like we’re coming for you and your family, you and your family should be sent to Russia to be killed, encouraged me — of me to commit suicide.
All of those have been forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security’s security services. And you know that’s not something that is American. When we disagree about the policy of this country, that is not how it should be. It is time to become adults. And I don’t have time for that childishness. I’m not going to let it silence me. I’m going to go forward and continue building awareness about this threat in the future.
HAYES: All right, Nina Jankowicz, I’m very sorry that happened to you, really. Thank you so much for your time. This is truly appreciated.
JANKOWICZ – Thanks for being here.
About Post Author
