“Disinformation Governance Board”

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by Charles Fout, May 1, 2022.

Loading...
  1. Charles Fout

    Charles Fout Active Member

    Is anyone for our proposed "Ministry of Truth?"
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  3. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

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

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Rachel83az and Rich Douglas like this.
  5. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    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.
     
    Rachel83az likes this.
  6. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

  7. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    N.B.: I've clipped out every post that contained the same personal attack.

    If you want to hurl personal attacks, go to Twitter.

    If I missed any, feel free to report them.
     
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

  9. MasterChief

    MasterChief Member

    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.
     
  10. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Well, it's no secret in Washington that close relationships between journalists and policymakers often lead to tepid coverage.

    This ridiculous puff piece in today's Washington Post about Nina Jankowicz is a relevant example:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/05/18/disinformation-board-dhs-nina-jankowicz/
     
    MasterChief likes this.
  11. Dustin

    Dustin Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  12. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    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?
     
  13. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    The angle is "Those meany-pants Republicans ganged up on poor heroic Nina and now she's been callously abandoned by the cowardly Biden administration."

    Or, less flippantly, it treats Jankowicz with kid gloves when she's a genuinely controversial figure. For example, it refers to her as "the victim of coordinated online attacks" without actually demonstrating any coordination by her critics on social media, and it repeatedly refers to her detractors as "far right" and "right-wing" but never Jankowicz as even progressive, much less "far left" or "left-wing", which she is.
     
    Charles Fout likes this.
  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    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?
     
  15. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  16. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Because she was being put in charge of something called the "Disinformation Governance Board" even though she's notably partisan, spread disinformation herself by claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop was made up by the Trump campaign when it wasn't, and decried the influence of "free speech absolutists" on social media.

    I get it that desinformatsiya is real, and that it's a real problem. But if there's going to be an agency that advises policymakers and/or the general public about it then whoever is in charge of that agency should be as close to above reproach as one might find in Washington, and she ain't it.
     
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  18. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    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.
     
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Yes, I'm sure it did.
     
  20. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    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.
     

Share This Page