Although the press is fond of expressing alarm at disinformation, journalists expose it.
The New York Times A deep analysis has been done of the Biden administration’s second attempt at formulating a misinformation task force to police social media and news outlets. Both the scope and the absence of criticism for the government’s excessive reach are disturbing. Numerous federal agencies agree that widely promoted falsehoods threaten the nation’s security. It is another thing to do something about them.
The Times also denounces Nina Jankowicz, who was the director of the failed first attempt to disinformation board.
A prominent author and researcher in the field of disinformation, who once advised Ukraine’s government, Ms. Jankowicz became a focus of the furor, targeted online by false or misleading information about her role in what critics denounced as a Ministry of Truth.
Their truncated biography of the woman misses her exposed excursions into disinformation. Jankowicz stated the Hunter Biden laptop taleA Russian hoax, she denied she proposed having verified Twitter accounts edit user content–though she is on video saying just that–and she was an enthusiastic proponent of the Russian collusion sham. The New York Times is also addressing this issue in this article.
Its roots began in Russia’s interference in the 2016 election of President Donald J. Trump, which he and his allies repeatedly denounced as fake despite evidence compiled by federal investigators about Russian complicity.
It is clear that there has been unwavering support for this kind of governmental initiative and selective facts were used in lobbying efforts. The Times is clearly on board with giving the federal offices control over aspects of our public discourse, and there is ample evidence – right now – that this application of disinformation standards will be extremely selective and fluid in nature. However, the same voices that are engaged in disinformation campaigns have little or no resistance to it.
In recent years, there has been an alarming trend among journalists and news organizations to support the government’s clampdown on freedom of expression. These are the people supposedly charged with holding the government accountable, yet they forward the idea that government policy should silence certain voices–if those are declared to be “misinformation.” CNN’s supposed media maven, Brian Stelter, supported the first attempt, calling it “common sense,” and “basic government bureaucracy.”
“This has been mostly a Fox World story,” @BrianStelter ridicules “a lot of right wing uproar” over DHS “Disinformation Governance Board.” It “sounds like common sense, but when I Google this all I see is like ‘Joe Biden’s Ministry of Truth’…” pic.twitter.com/znNTqeZapK
— Brent Baker 🇺🇦 (@BrentHBaker) May 1, 2022
That it would be governmental figures, or their allies in the press, who are making the determination of what is deemed mis/mal/dis-information is a detail the press would rather we overlook. It is not a worrying trend towards centralized thought police. They want it that way. The concept of freedom of expression does not depend on people agreeing to be right. It allows for wrong, inaccurate or uncomfortably spoken words. The press is fond of expressing concern about the future of democracy, but it does so based only on the accepted speech levels.
We have an unusual and shocking example of the selective nature this outcry. The past couple of days, a number of major figures in journalism have been spreading the word – Salon Magazine – that Florida’s Governor Ron DeSantis is signing a law that will force university faculty members, administration officials, and students to register their political affiliation with the state.
A number of people have made a bizarre move. blue-checked accounts notable journalistsThese are spreading this pieceImpugning the governorA wide range of inspiring ideas. vocal responsesOf opposition. This story is totally false.
First, Salon is where it came from. It was first published in June 2021. Most telling, the story was completely debunked – More than a year ago. But look at all of the verified accounts that are spreading it as factual, current news. This is the exact type of verified account we were instructed should be capable of verifying the facts and correcting the user accounts record as it sees fit.
It is remarkable that there has been no public outrage at this united response. The so-called concerned set of disinformation experts is tellingly muted about this activity, when–if anything–it should receive heightened scrutiny. These accounts, which may contain misleading information, should be flagged. Because they are trusted sources, they have greater reach and more influence.
Instead these prevarications are ignored by verified accounts and excused. They reside on the correct side of ledger so are allowed the freedom to propagate the exact type of misinformation which we have been told is dangerous to democracy. This lays out the complete sham of a centralized “truth authority”.
This office is the arbiter of acceptable speech. The members of the press are interested in joining. Journalists have witnessed their power on national narratives diminish over time as more people find alternative outlets that offer different perspectives. Government and media should target these outlets, and then dictate the narratives. It is the growing problem that the press doesn’t want to team up with government officials in order police public forums.
About Post Author
