Goodbye Disinformation Board, Hello Disinformation Index. Less than a year after many celebrated the disbanding of the Biden’s Administration Disinformation Board, it appears that the Administration has been funding a British group to rank sites to warn people about high-risk disinformation sites. Gabe Kaminsky at the Washington Examiner previously ran a story on the Index. The Global Disinformation Index (GDI) has released its index and every one of the high-risk sites turn out to be . . . wait for it . . . conservative or libertarian sites. HuffPost or Mother Jones (which were also analyzed), but HuffPost made the top list of most trustworthy for potential advertisers. It turns out that the “riskiest online news outlets” just happen to be some of the most popular sites for conservatives, libertarians, and independents. [N.B.: After my Hill column ran, the National Endowment for Democracy wrote to inform me that it had decided to stop funding the Global Disinformation Index].
The GDI is designed to steer advertisers and subscribers away from certain sites, potentially draining sites of revenue needed to operate. The organization issues the index to “advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them avoid financially supporting disinformation online.” The State Department is partially funding the effort. The Biden Administration gave $330 million to The National Endowment for Democracy, which partially supports the GDI’s budget.
GDI warned advertisers that these sites could damage their reputations and brands: New York Post, Reason, Real Clear Politics, The Daily Wire, The Blaze, One America News Network, The Federalist, Newsmax, The American Spectator, and The American Conservative.
The inclusion of the New York Post is particularly notable. It is ranked in the top ten newspapers in the country and the top ten digital news sites. (For full disclosure, I have written for the newspaper as well as many of those on the trusted side of the GDI ledger). The New York Post was suspended by social media companies over the Hunter Biden story before the 2020 election by companies relying on false stories appearing in many of the most trustworthy sites listed by GDI.
The allegedly dangerous sites also included Reason, a website associated with UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, who was clearly gobsmacked by the warning. Reason regularly posts insightful and substantive analysis from conservative and libertarian scholars. With the diminishing number of such academics on faculties, the site is a relative rarity in offering a different take on cases and legal issues. The inclusion of Reason in the listing is absurd and shows an utter lack of objective and reliable criteria. For example, GDI says that the site offers “no information regarding authorship attribution, pre-publication fact-checking or post-publication corrections processes, or policies to prevent disinformation in its comments section.” That is obviously untrue as any cursory review of the site would confirm. The Reason articles contain clear indications of authorship.
Moreover, there is a reason why Reason does not have policies posted on the removal of disinformation: it opposes content moderation policies of groups like GDI on free speech grounds. Reason like my own blog Res Ipsa (www.jonathanturley.org) opposes disinformation “processes” used to limit free speech. As Volokh noted, “Reason does not specifically police disinformation in the comments section; that is perhaps an area where Reason‘s philosophy—free minds and free markets—clashes with GDI’s.”
The GDI reviewed sites on the far left like Mother Jones that routinely run unsupported attacks on the right and debunked theories on Russian collusion or other claims. For example, many of the sites ranked as most reliable only recently admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop was not Russian disinformation. For two years, these sites spread this false story with little or no opposing viewpoints despite early refutation by American intelligence.
Even in 2021, NPR still claimed that “The laptop story was discredited by U.S. intelligence and independent investigations by news organizations.” After a chorus of objections to the clearly false story, it corrected the story but still stated falsely that “numerous news organizations cast doubt on the credibility of the laptop story.” It never explained the continuing “doubt”? Media organizations that effectively imposed a blackout on the story had already confirmed that the laptop was authentic.
Likewise, sites like NPR continued to make the false claim that former Attorney General Bill Barr cleared Lafayette Park for a photo op long after the claim was proven to be categorically untrue. The government-supported news outlet also has been routinely challenged for making biased or false claims about conservatives, including Supreme Court justices.
Nevertheless, the New York Post and Reason are listed as dangerous sites while sites like HuffPost are actually listed at the top of the least risky disinformation sites. HuffPost is regularly challenged on false or misleading attacks on conservatives.
None of that means that I would put NPR or Mother Jones or HuffPost on a do-not-advertise disinformation list. These are sites with a well-known liberal bent just as other sites have a conservative bent. I am not here to denounce those sites any more than I am here to defend the other sites for their content. Rather the concern is that GDI is applying skewed measures to target disfavored sites. It is concerning that the sites at either extreme of GDI’s spectrum of disinformation largely reflect the political spectrum. (One exception is the Wall Street Journal, which is in the most trustworthy grouping).
GDI accuses sites like Reason of lacking transparency on issues like authorship but the group is fairly opaque on its own conclusions and standards. The explanations for tagging these sites are riddled with subjective and ambiguous terms. For example, GDI includes RealClearPolitics due to what GDI considers “biased and sensational language.” Did the reviewers actually visit the sites of Mother Jones and HuffPost in evaluating comparative levels of bias? Were those sites paragons of neutrality and circumspection?
GDI further says that RealClearPolitics “lacked clear and diverse sources.” Many of the sites ranked as most reliable (and thus worthy of advertising revenue) are routinely criticized for excluding conservative or libertarian perspectives. HuffPost and Mother Jones have a range of diversity that runs from the left to the far left.
The New York Times has led efforts to exclude opposing voices from the right. In 2020, the the Times issued a cringing apology for running a column by Sen. Tom Cotton. The Times forced out editor James Bennet and apologized for publishing Cotton’s column calling for the use of the troops to restore order in Washington after days of rioting around the White House. (Bennet recently denounced his former newspaper for abandoning journalistic standards of balance).
The GDI disinformation index shows the very favoritism that it attributes to others. For example, in discouraging advertisers from supporting the New York Post, the group declares that “content sampled from the Post frequently displayed bias, sensationalism and clickbait, which carries the risk of misleading the site’s reader.” The line reflects the utter lack of self-awareness of self-appointed monitors of disinformation. There is no effort to explain what constitutes “clickbait” or “sensationalism” in comparison to more favored sites like HuffPost.
The fact that GDI reflects such bias is not particularly surprising. Disinformation efforts have long displayed pronounced political influences and agendas. Indeed, we have seen recent disclosures of how members of Congress like Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) secretly sought to use disinformation claims to ban critics, including a columnist, from social media.
What is more troubling is the funding of the United States government for a group seeking to target conservative sites and deter advertisers from supporting them. I recently testified on the disclosures of the Twitter Files and the confirmation of coordination by the FBI and other federal agencies with social media companies in censoring citizens. I noted that the Administration played the public for chumps. After yielding to an outcry over the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, the Administration disbanded it. It never mentioned that a far larger censorship effort was being carried out with an estimated 80 federal employees in targeting citizens and others. While the GDI effort is smaller in comparison and effect, it is an additional facet of this effort. It is not known if the Administration has other programs of this kind and the Democrats continue to vehemently oppose any investigation into these free speech concerns.
In other words, the Board was just a shiny object that distracted from a far more comprehensive effort to censor and control speech on social media. I still would not call it disinformation but one might call it deceitful.
NB: After this column ran, the NED wrote me to emphasize that the Biden Administration did not direct its funding of the GDI.
Makes sense when you remember their definition of disinformation, which has nothing to do with truth or falsity – rather, it is any information that departs from their narrative.
Biden’s ‘disinformation czar’ went to Britain. Guess she’s doing her work by proxy, too. I don’t often throw out insults, but these people are slime. This may not technically be unconstitutional, but it sure is obvious, and it is reprehensible. The dems have gotta go, they are beyond redemption as a party.
Something is missing from this post. Why would advertisers be interested in excluding any potential customers? Maybe it’s not about excluding anyone. But rather the list informs them what sites attract the most gullible people. NPR or Reason? 🤔 🤑
Well, the Global Disinformation Index has already lost me for not placing their name at the top of the riskiest sites for disinformation. Try Again Liebabies.
“It turns out that the “riskiest online news outlets” just happen to be some of the most popular sites for conservatives, libertarians, and independents.”
They are popular because they are essentially BS factories and entertainment programs pretending to be news sources. They are popular because the people these organizations cater to are those who are easily swayed by BS and the kind of entertainment news that is similar to WWE. They know it’s fake, but some take it seriously enough that they ignore the fact that it’s fake.
“The GDI is designed to steer advertisers and subscribers away from certain sites, potentially draining sites of revenue needed to operate. The organization issues the index to “advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them avoid financially supporting disinformation online.”
The GDI provides advertisers information to make better decisions about who they wish to associate with. Nothing wrong with that. It’s all just information they have available to consider. After all it is…free speech. This is the same kind of speech that Turley always supports. Let people or in this case advertisers decide for themselves what to do with this information.
“The State Department is partially funding the effort. The Biden Administration gave $330 million to The National Endowment for Democracy, which partially supports the GDI’s budget.”
The National endowment for democracy is a bipartisan private non-profit organization that is supported by democrats and republicans as well.
“In 1983, The National Endowment for Democracy began its work supporting freedom around the world. Today, NED is a comprehensive support system for democrats in more than 90 countries. The Endowment is both a keystone of President Ronald Reagan’s legacy and a rare example of bipartisan cooperation and solidarity.”
The NED is funded by congress, not the Biden administration. Turley as usual is being disingenuous with the facts. The NED as signed into law by Ronald Reagan and supported by congressional republicans as well as democrats. This funding has been going on for a long time and it represents a very small amount of money. They rely mostly on donations from other countries as well.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/98th-congress/house-bill/2915
“The GDI provides advertisers information to make better decisions about who they wish to associate with. Nothing wrong with that.”
An Apologist for censorship. To the bitter end.
Sam how is that censorship? All the GDI is providing is information that any advertiser is free to ignore or use. If they choose where to advertise based on that information how is it censorship?
Advertising is all about appealing to the widest audience possible. Conservative and libertarian organizations are not exactly known for their diversity or large audiences. Ironically it’s the market that determines where to advertise and those organizations are not very high on their list even without the GDI info. Remember when Tucker Carlson or Hannity promoted very racist or controversial views on LGBTQ issues? Advertisers pulled their ads from those programs because a large portion of their customers are LGBTQ or liberal and there are more of them which means a lot of revenue.
Who is sponsoring and paying for the GDI? Do you know? Is the government supposed to pay for advertising research?
Your ignorance is appalling.
“Sam how is that censorship?”
Some people don’t understand the meaning of “State Department.” Or they’re evading that fact.
Sam, that still doesn’t explain how it’s censorship. “State Department” means censorship? You’re not making any sense.
“You’re not making any sense.”
To those who refuse to see, it is impossible to make sense.
The NED is funded by congress, not the Biden administration.
This is a great example of a pedantic reply. It tries to muddy up the debate with minutia not relevant…and while technically correct, is wrong in its context.
I can go pedantic
No Congress did not write a check to the NED. There is no Congressional Check Book.
What Selvaz is doing is saying ONLY Congress can budget Federal $’s. True. But that money is “spent” by the various Govt agencies funded by congress. So YES the Biden administration did fund NED
Iowan2 shows his ignorance once again.
“This is a great example of a pedantic reply. It tries to muddy up the debate with minutia not relevant…and while technically correct, is wrong in its context.
I can go pedantic
No Congress did not write a check to the NED. There is no Congressional Check Book.”
Apparently you don’t know what ‘pedantic’ means. The fact I pointed out is relevant because congress controls the purse and determines for what the money is to be used for. Congress did “write a check” and the H. R. 2915 explicitly states what the funds are for. The NED is one of the many organizations in the bill.
“What Selvaz is doing is saying ONLY Congress can budget Federal $’s. True. But that money is “spent” by the various Govt agencies funded by congress. So YES the Biden administration did fund NED”
Wrong. The money is “spent” by congress when they allocate the money to the appropriate agency. Congress funds all agencies what they tell them what they can spend the money on and clearly congress tells whatever administration is in office to “spend” that money according to what the Bill that congress created says it must be spent on. Congress funds the NED not the Biden administration. All they are doing is administering what congress wants. Furthermore Turley’s conveniently leaves out the fact that the bill was also approved by republicans and in prior years by republican presidents since 1983. Reagan supported the NED. Minutiae matter Iowan2, that’s where you get your context from.
No hope for us, I suppose. Descending at ever-increasing speed into the abyss. It’s not as though the voices from history have not shouted to us to beware. Increasingly I find myself making longterm financial decisions beneath the cloud of an America that looks more and more like certain countries in 1930s Europe.
I am beginning to think, biden may be brilliant. One scandal can be investigated thoroughly, 1000 scandals are just a statistic.
Dear Prof Turley,
Trust me, you are on the List. Your half-baked testimony about the half-fake Laptop may have put you at the top of the list. The Pope of all Trump apostles.
*that’s straight from the horses’ mouth .. . and you don’t have a ‘section 230’ to hide behind.
Anon#1
Sry, the above was addressed to Prof Turley
You can’t rob a thief. Biden didn’t last 50 years in a den of thieves on his charm and good looks.
*a brilliant Mastermind of .. . chaos, disorder and anarchy.
So anybody that disagrees with the clowns, is misinformed.
Clowns are funny.
I was forwarded this GDI ranking list yesterday evening from a distant friend and now Jonathan Turley blogs about it, like minds!
Here’s what I have to say about the connection to the Biden administration via the Democratic Party’s tentacle network of surrogates…
https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/orwell-1984-biden.jpg
If there are those out there that are still resisting the belief that we’re heading into the dark abyss of a pure totalitarian government they should be able to start connecting the dots by now unless they’re a complete idiot or an propaganda apologist for the totalitarian shift.
Witherspoon, your analysis is spot on. The question at this point is how those of us who are concerned about this trajectory can counter it. Any thoughts?
For most people it’s simple; do not remain silent, be vocal, very vocal.
True Steve! Conservatives are too quiet and unwilling to get their hands dirty. That is a problem when you are fighting people who blindly follow Stalinists. Leftists must be informed of their ignorance using any way necessary.
Conservatives are too quiet and unwilling to get their hands dirty.
Maybe in your world SM, but not all conservatives rest their efforts on being keyboard warriors. Just like any other war, there are many fronts in this one that require “other” skillsets. Be grateful that we have conservatives fighting in areas and in ways that you may not recognize. They might not find much value in arguing with those hypnotized in the Left’s mass formation strategy. But they wouldn’t denigrate those that do.
Olly, I don’t think a keyboard warrior is the only way conservatives can fight back. In fact, being a keyboard warrior isn’t the best way. I support other ways as well, and as a personal note, when I do so actively and purposefully, it is with much more knowledge of the enemy.
I am very much involved in the “conservative” moment and am active in other ways, but if I am going to waste (?) my time here, I am willing to get my hands dirty. I have no gripe with any of the “conservatives” on this blog, especially you and your service. All have merit, but I think our leftist friends need to be put in awkward positions. The sophisticated “conservative” reaches a more sophisticated mind. Those minds will not change based on singular comments. It is the minds in the background who need information so they can speak up and be heard.
People like Svelaz or Anonymous the Stupid will not change, nor should the object be to change their minds. Svelaz is a low IQ but loves to be heard. ATS, as I have mentioned many times, seems to be of the Stalinist variety. I am very familiar with that type because I dealt with them when I was young, and today know a lot of former Stalinists that have turned 180 degrees. You might have read some of their books.
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals is not new. It is ancient but survives to the present because it works. Some of it is not nice, and some means getting hands dirty. People should read that book and anti-Alinsky Rules for Radicals. (I am not sure of the exact name.)
You have brought up more than one spy and defector that provides sound advice. That is very worthwhile and needs to be banged into the heads of the unseen.
SM, just know that us ‘less sophisticated conservatives’ are also getting our hands dirty dragging our knuckles. 😉
Olly I believe that, but you are not unsophisticated. There is nothing wrong with not being interested in the political economy. Many highly educated sophisticated researchers aren’t.
There is nothing wrong with not being interested in the political economy.
Well, they should at least be aware, to what extent, it is “interested” in them.
“they should at least be aware, to what extent, it is “interested” in them.”
Olly, I assume that is the time when interest is most aroused.
Witherspoon is too emotional to make a reasonable analysis. The moment you contradict him or produce a counterpoint he loses his mind and goes on a ranting and insult tirade.
Svelaz wrote, “Witherspoon is too emotional to make a reasonable analysis.”
You’re welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts, that statement from you is delusional.
Svelaz wrote, “The moment you contradict him or produce a counterpoint he loses his mind and goes on a ranting and insult tirade.”
You’re welcome to your own opinion. It appears that I’ve hurt your feelings, well Svelaz I really don’t give a hoot about your feelings.
Thanks for proving my point Witherspoon.
Svelaz wrote, “Thanks for proving my point Witherspoon.”
Since you’ve made so many ludicrous claims and accusations, which point of yours did I prove and how did I prove it?
I know, like most internet trolls, you really can’t help yourself, but reasonable analysis of the last two comments between us shows that you’re delusional, that’s an intelligent observation based on the definition of the word it’s not an emotional reaction.
Delusional: characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.
I’m typically analytical not emotional, I typically maintain composure I don’t lose my mind, I typically present arguments as opposed to ranting or or going on tirades, however when I do go on a rant I literally state it outright. You, like far too many asinine progressive trolls trying to deflect, must consider anything that you don’t agree with as being emotional rants and tirades and anyone that you disagree with is out of their mind and that kind of perspective is literally delusional. Your claims that I’m too emotional, I lose my mind and go on rants and tirades is unsupportable, it’s ad hominems and on this end it sounds like pure psychological projection on your part.
Have a nice day Svelaz.
Fin.
The media have itself to blame for its low rating. Harvard Professor Louis Menand studied the growing distrust in the media. He wrote that “Back in 1976, even after Vietnam and Watergate, seventy-two per cent of the public said they trusted the news media. Today, the figure is thirty-four per cent. Among Republicans, it’s fourteen per cent.” In today’s Harvard Gazette there’s a piece by Jeff Neal in which he interviews NY Times lawyer David McCraw on “Modern Challenges to Press Freedom and Growing Distrust of the News Media.” Neal asks about Trump’s libel suit pertaining to Trump’s sister Mary and information about Trump’s financial dealings. The article goes on to discuss the Pentagon Papers and other stories but ignores the 800-pound elephant in the room: The Times’s censorship of the Biden laptop story and its false reporting that it was Russian disinformation. Neal also ignores the Times’s fascination with the phony Russian collusion story. As Turley tells us, “Res ipsa loquitur” – the things itself speaks!
The Federal Government is a funnel for sending tax dollars to ideologically preferred NGOs. The House should not pass a single appropriations bill that provides for this.
Funnel, and a spigot.
“The Federal Government is a funnel for sending tax dollars to ideologically preferred NGOs.”
Which is, of course, fascism — state control of speech via semi-private organizations.
D: Didn’t you warn some time ago not to fixate on “Mary Poppins?” That the issue is the Left’s desire to impose censorship, and that they would just devise other tactics? If so, you were prescient.
Looking at govt corruption surrounding !RUSSIA!, we know it is the IC, and the Justice Dept, and the White House. The State Dept was left out. But the State Dept is a major player in all this. Exposing this GDI scoring and how its funded is literally the tip of a very corrupt State Dept.
It’s been a while since I have read Orwell’s “1984”. It’s time I do that again.
Nineteen Eighty-Four
Author(s): George Orwell, Erich Fromm, Thomas Pynchon, Daniel Lagin
Publisher: Plume, Year: 2003
ISBN: 9780452284234,0452284236
Description:
Thought Police. Big Brother. Orwellian. These words have entered our vocabulary because of George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel, 1984 . The story of one man’s nightmare odyssey as he pursues a forbidden love affair through a world ruled by warring states and a power structure that controls not only information but also individual thought and memory, 1984 is a prophetic, haunting tale. More relevant than ever before, 1984 exposes the worst crimes imaginable-the destruction of truth, freedom, and individuality. With a new forward by Thomas Pynchon.
62.182.86.140/main/266000/16c402f4f9b737ea33c4ea5d938331a0/George%20Orwell%2C%20Erich%20Fromm%2C%20Thomas%20Pynchon%2C%20Daniel%20Lagin%20-%20Nineteen%20Eighty-Four-Plume%20%282003%29.pdf
Orwell on Freedom
Author(s): George Orwell
Publisher: Harvill Secker, Year: 2018
ISBN: 1787301400,9781787301405
Description:
With an introduction by Kamila Shamsie
‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two equals four. If that is granted, all else follows.’
GEORGE ORWELL is one of the world’s most famous writers and social commentators. Through his writing he exposed the unjust sufferings of the poor and unemployed, warned against totalitarianism and defended freedom of speech.
This selection, from both his novels and non-fiction, charts his prescient and clear-eyed thinking on the subject of FREEDOM. It ranges from pieces on individual liberty, society and technology, to political liberty, revolution and the importance of free speech. His ambition to create a fairer and more egalitarian society is essential inspiration as we strive for freedom and equality in today’s world.
‘If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.’
62.182.86.140/main/2297000/7d6058c246614211fecba0c98019e96d/George%20Orwell%20-%20Orwell%20on%20Freedom-Harvill%20Secker%20%282018%29.epub
I read it again during the height of COVID. It is surprising how accurately Orwell understood the totalitarian mindset.
We’ve heard the comments and seen the actions from the WEC, Davos Man, this is not just the USA. It is international elites that want to dictate to the world.
We the People of the world are in a battle for our freedom. Our governments are not necessarily our friends in this battle.
“It is easy in the world to live after the world’s opinion; it is easy in solitude after our own; but the great man is he who in the midst of the crowd keeps with perfect sweetness the independence of solitude.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance (1841)
Very nice. Thank you.
Power of the state combined with much of the media to support a lefty agenda.
And destroy conservative voices.
We have crossed the line.
Reason.com…bookmarked.
I have read that magazine for over 40 years.
Biden goose steps in his sleep….somebody open a window
To be on the list is a badge of honor.
We’re quickly approaching the point where everything turns and plenty of bureaucrats end up like Christopher Stevens. Bank on it!