Topic: Media Research Center
The Media Research Center repeatedly attacked a proposed "disinformation governance board" by the Department of Homeland Security with falsehoods and smears, declaring it to be an Orwellian "ministry of truth" despite the fact that it would have been no such thing. It also lashed out at the woman who would have headed the board, Nina Jankowicz, for calling out those lies and trying to fight back -- then continued to attack her well after it was clear that the right-wing smear campaign had succeeded in killing the board. Another example of that is a May 11 post by Autumn Johnson complaining that Jankowicz sued Fox News for lying about her:
Self-proclaimed “Mary Poppins of disinformation” Nina Jankowicz has hopped on the bandwagon and is trying to sic the legal system on Fox News.
In a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, Jankowicz claimed that Fox News “defamed” her character despite her beloved Disinformation Governance Board being rightfully accused of seeking to censor Americans' speech online. The suit takes particular issue with the network’s labeling of Jankowicz as "unhinged” and a "Minister of Truth" in a reference to George Orwell's dystopian world in his book 1984. Apparently, Jankowicz doesn’t consider “Mary Poppins of disinformation” and “Minister of Truth” to be synonymous.
[...]
Jankowicz’s attorneys claim that Fox is supposedly responsible for the purported death threats she received after her address was released online.
The lawsuit further alleges that Fox’s coverage of her anti-free speech views created a "completely false reputation concerning government censorship.”
"[B]ased on verifiable falsehoods, Fox has made Jankowicz radioactive and deterred others from working with her as they otherwise would," her attorneys argued. Jankowicz registered as a foreign agent in 2022 after the DGB went kaput so she could work with the U.K.-based Centre for Information Resilience as an “ambassador” to fight so-called disinformation.
Of course, the lawsuit dismissed Jankwociz’s own history of spreading “disinformation.” But don’t worry, MRC Free Speech America has receipts.
Johnson is lying about Jankowicz as well. The DGB was never about censorship; its goal was to coordinate anti-disinformation efforts within the DHS and wouldn't be policing speech. Therefore, Jankowicz could not possibly have been the "Minister of Truth" Johnson insists she was to be, and her attempt to play whaboutism by accusingher of spreading "disinformation" doesn't change that fact.
A July 10 post by Gabriela Pariseau raged at Jankowicz for pointing out the factual deficiency of the right-wing "censorship" narrative, since the government isn't actually censoring anyone and doesn't have the last word on whether social media does so:
The former leader of the defunct Disinformation Governance Board argued Saturday that the government doesn’t censor users it just makes it easier for social media companies to censor them.
MSNBC host Ali Velshi brought Nina Jankowicz his show Velshi to critique the Missouri v. Biden case. The case came out with a momentous pro free speech ruling ordering that the Biden administration no longer encourage Big Tech companies to censor constitutionally protected speech. Jankowicz, however, was not too thrilled. She even argued that flagging posts somehow helps generate more speech.
Velshi claimed that the ruling implies that “the government was trying to influence social media companies in violation of the First Amendment which sort of prevents the government from stifling speech. That's not really the story.”
[...]
In case that was clear as mud, Jankowicz later explained that the government doesn’t censor it merely flags content that violates Big Tech companies' policies. “In more than 70% of the instances,” the platforms do nothing,” she added defending her position.
She further explained. “It's a flag saying [to Big Tech companies] hey, you may not have seen this… but here's some election disinformation. Here's something that could threaten public health that already goes against your policies. We thought you might want to know about it.”
Jankowicz failed to explain, however, how flagging content is different from trying to influence social media companies to remove speech. What does she expect the companies to do about the so-called disinformation the government is pointing out to them if not take it down?
Pariseau offered no evidence that anyone in the government demanded "censorship" -- indeed, she later admitted that "government agencies had no power to censor users directly" -- and didn't explain why it was bad if all that was being done was flagging of violations of the social media sites' own policies, which tend to censor on prohibiting the spread of hate, lies and misinformation. Pariseau didn't explain why stopping hate, lies and misinformation is a bad thing.
Clay Waters served up his own anti-Jankowicz rant in a July 13 post, complete with the lie that the DGB would have been "Orwellian" and a complaint that Jankowicz pointed out that she faces "threats of physical violence" from the right-wing hate campaign:
On Amanpour & Co., which airs on CNN International and PBS, journalist Michel Martin commiserated with Nina Jankowicz, cringeworthy songbird and appointed director of the Biden administration’s Disinformation Governance Board before the Orwellian outfit was scuttled after outcry from conservatives and concerns from liberal groups like the ACLU.
[...]
Liberal journalists love pounding that note of violent threats, as if conservatives never get those. It underlines that the conservatives are the kooky extremists.
Waters didn't denounce those threats or make any effort to distance his fellow right-wingers from them. Instead,he complained further that the right-wing extremism against her was pointed out:
Martin flattered her guest by painting her opposition as nonsensical.
Martin: So, they make you controversial and that becomes an excuse for people to make you untouchable, because you are controversial, even though controversy is invented to begin with.
Jankowicz: Yeah, yeah, that's exactly it….
Martin’s speech then slowed, as if it was painful for her to inject a few seconds of balance into this 20-minute fawnathon, then quickly scurrying away from providing the actual counter-argument.
The former disinfo head claimed to be suing Fox News for defamation because the network lied “about statements that I was alleged to have made….And they lied about me being fired when, in fact, I resigned, and lied about my intention in joining the government.”
It sounded like an awfully thin reed on which to hang a lawsuit that impinges on the First Amendment rights of journalists, even as she claimed to be “standing up for democracy and standing up for the truth.”
Waters didn't disprove anything Jankowicz or Martin said about those right-wing attacks. He then claimed that she "misleadingly denied what the administration did was censorship, but merely 'law enforcement agencies speaking to social media platforms and saying, 'hey, we see a problem on your website here.'' Translation: Nice social media outlet you have here, shame if anything happened to it!" Like Pariseau, Waters ignored the fact that there were no orders to do anything and that the things being flagged were violations of the social media sites' own policies.
When Jankowicz made another TV appearance, it was Alex Christy's turn to rage about it in a July 15 post:
MSNBC’s Ali Velshi, best known for standing in front of a burning building and saying nothing “unruly” was going on, used his Saturday show to proclaim that his audience, unlike Fox’s, does not conspiracy theorists in it.
Speaking to Nika Jankowicz, formerly of DHS’s infamous Disinformation Governance Board, Velshi recounted, “I just did that intro to the segment, right? So that my audience would understand this conspiracy theory that I guarantee you, pretty much nobody in my audience knew that story because why would they?”
Velshi was referring to Ray Epps<, who recently sued Fox News for claims that he was an FBI agent who encouraged the rob to storm The Capitol on January 6. Velshi claimed he is not like that. Instead, viewers tune in to his show for egghead takes about economics, “Two segments ago I talked about red states and Bidenomics, again I’m not-- my audience doesn't have conspiracy theorists in, right?”
[...]
Proving that MSNBC’s concern about disinformation only goes one way, Jankowicz responded by hyping her own lawsuit against Fox, “I've decided to sue Fox, as well, for the conspiracy theories they spread about me. I think there needs to be consequences for people running people’s lives, lying for profit.”
Of course, the MRC's concern about disinformation only goes one way, as Christy failed to disclose the lies and misinformation his employer spread about Jankowicz and the DGB.
