Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are the modern-day public squares, but not everyone wants it to stay that way. Leaders in President Joe Biden’s administration, primarily Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, want social media platforms to monitor and censor content, cracking down on what at least some consider to be “disinformation.”
Mayorkas’s solution was the ill-fated Disinformation Governance Board, directed by Nina Jankowicz. Jankowicz has contributed to the spread of misinformation in the past, but that hasn’t stopped pundits from pearl-clutching over her demise. The New York Times published a puff piece on Jankowicz on Tuesday, framing her as the victim and pointing fingers at everyone but her.
“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,” write Steven Lee Myers and Eileen Sullivan.
Let’s set the record straight on whether Jankowicz truly was the target of “false or misleading information.”
Before, during, and after her short tenure as the disinformation board’s director, Jankowicz spread false narratives for political gain.
She backed up Chris Steele’s thoughts on disinformation despite his authorship of the widely discredited Steele dossier. Jankowicz also disputed verified intelligence reports regarding Iran’s involvement in the 2020 presidential election. Washington Examiner reporter Jerry Dunleavy compiled several of her misinformation-peddling incidents into one thread.
NYT puff piece on Jankowicz (by ‘misinfo’ & DHS reporters w/ photo & quotes from former Disinfo Governance Board director) claims she was “targeted online by false or misleading info” but doesn’t note even one of many instances of her spreading falsehoodshttps://t.co/Jtjk2TZc9p pic.twitter.com/cPnhK2T7aB
— Jerry Dunleavy (@JerryDunleavy) July 6, 2022
Myers and Sullivan tried to paint the Disinformation Governance Board as a positive step forward. In their eyes, the fear over free speech was unwarranted. They point to DHS saying the board “should not attempt to be an all-purpose arbiter of truth in the public arena” as proof that it would not.
But it raises red flags to have a board dedicated to regulating the public square and organized under the federal department responsible for counterterrorism activities. It is not “false or misleading” to point this out — and in fact, the insinuation by Jankowicz and her enablers that this is some kind of misinformation is itself damning. If she were given the power of this board to silence such obvious concerns, then what else would they censor?
Conservatives and civil libertarians are treated as the bad guys and gals for a vast majority of Myers and Sullivan’s article, but that’s far from the truth. And they devoted only three sentences to the concerns over Jankowicz expressed by nonpartisan and left-of-center organizations.
Protect Democracy, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are the three organizations Myers and Sullivan briefly mention before segueing back into their rant about conservatives. They conveniently leave out the ACLU’s opposition to the Disinformation Governance Board, apparently because they know their intended audience looks to the ACLU as the final say on issues regarding civil rights. “We’re skeptical of the government arbitrating truth and falsity,” the ACLU had tweeted. If Myers and Sullivan told their audience that stance, do you think readers would still support Jankowicz and the board?
DHS hasn’t adequately explained the need for or scope of its eerily named Disinformation Governance Board.
We’re skeptical of the government arbitrating truth and falsity. How concerned we should be depends on the function and authority of this position. https://t.co/yfZttX2pv5
— ACLU (@ACLU) May 6, 2022
It is truly ironic that an article trying to justify government regulation of speech rests on the picking and choosing of facts by the very sort of people who could potentially be empowered to make some facts inaccessible to readers. Whether through sheer ignorance of the facts or purposeful intent, Myers and Sullivan are misleading their readers. Is that not the kind of speech the Disinformation Governance Board was intended to regulate?
In spite of their disinformation misadventure, Mayorkas and Jankowicz have it pretty good. They don’t need to spread disinformation themselves as long as New York Times journalists are willing to carry their water for them.
James Sweet is a summer 2022 Washington Examiner fellow.
