“Disinformation Governance Board”

Is anyone for our proposed "Ministry of Truth?"

 

Well, it's not called that. Nor is that what it does. It's designed to counter falsehoods. It has nothing to do with free speech or controlling what is considered "truth."

Funny. The government sets up a division to combat misinformation and misinformers immediately begin misinforming about it.

 

Yep. Misinformers gonna misinform. It's what they do.

 

Great concept. Stupid name.

Government always aimed at providing their take on things. US was asleep at the wheel since the end of the Cold War, while adversaries kept disinformation flowing. Good to know they are recognizing this.

 

Precisely.
This is the take people would have if they habitually get their info from #ucker Carlson and Sputnik (AKA Kremlin Lies FM). Not unexpected.

 

Some reporting was locally on this news:

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2022/04/29/florida-desantis-biden-disinformation-governance-board/

 

I recall George Bush's administration developed covert propaganda to shore up support for the war in Iraq. Was it truly discontinued? Is there a correlation between the two programs? I think the same ideas and plans tend to pass between administrations.

 

It was a lousy name for a poorly explained thing.

If they had called it the Disinformation Advisory Board (governance implies control of something), and said that its role was to advise government agencies how to counter Russian propaganda (which it was), then there would be no fuss.

 

The article looked like a reasonable article to me. Why do you call it a puff piece? If by puff piece you mean that they were not critical of the Biden administration then that is completely false. It made it very clear, I thought, that the Biden administration botched the whole thing big time. The roll-out was pathetic and poorly thought out and the response to the false attacks on the part of the administration was even worse. So, I'm not sure what is meant by a puff piece?

 

That.

Unfortunately, Americans are subject to simple propaganda and empty phrases, so this one was easy to tackle. The effort was simply to combat misinformation. But a certain political party has for years tried to convince Americans that there is "fake news" and "alternative facts."

In a democracy, an informed and involved populace is vital. If a substantial number of Americans can get bamboozled over this, what hope is there for democracy in the future?

 

I didn't get the impression that the article was trying to make HER look good. I don't know why anyone, except Jankowicz's friends and family, would care about her? She wrote a couple of books on the subject so that makes her at least knowledgeable on the topic. I guess? Perhaps she might have known what she was doing if she had even started doing what she was hired to do? I didn't take it as an article about her? She was just the "dummy target" for the vitriolic attacks.

 

Why does having political convictions invites "reproach"?
"Hunter laptop" may exist as physical entity, but one can claim that what is referred to as "Hunter laptop" in mass conscience is in fact made up by people favoring Trump reelection. Sp you can reproach me if you're so inclined.

 

The vast majority of political appointees are partisan. That should be no surprise.

The WP article seemed to me to be very reasonable. It was an article about exactly what the title indicates. "How the Biden administration let right-wing attacks derail its disinformation efforts" What you are complaining about in this article would make a totally different article and would not make much sense trying to include that all into one article.

 

Okay, here's the deal, this was not a puff piece. Look at the title, do I need to take some quotes of the article to prove to you that the article was extremely critical of the administration? Your assertion was that it was a puff piece because the article was not critical about some political appointee that never even got a chance to do her job is ridiculous. The public doesn't give a crap about her. The article was not about her. The article was about how the administration messed up.

Jankowicz was attacked by the right because and I'll quote

quote:
"A textbook disinformation campaign
Experts say that right-wing disinformation and smear campaigns regularly follow the same playbook and that it’s crucial that the public and leaders of institutions, especially in the government, the media and educational bodies, understand more fully how these cycles operate.

The campaigns invariably start with identifying a person to characterize as a villain. Attacking faceless institutions is difficult, so a figurehead (almost always a woman or person of color) is found to serve as its face. Whether that person has actual power within that institution is often immaterial. By discrediting those made to represent institutions they seek to bring down, they discredit the institution itself."

So Jankowicz was just a "target dummy", something to attack. Your false assertion that the article was a puff piece because it was not critical enough about Jankowicz is silly. The article was not about her. The article was not a puff piece it was very critical of the administration. What you are complaining about that was missing from the article would be a different topic for a different article. What I'd guess would be a very boring article because the public could not care less about Jankowicz.