When Department of Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas Tells Us Not to Worry About That Disinformation Board

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas hit the Sunday shows trying to sell the Disinformation Governance Board that he’s in charge of, which the Biden Administration announced this week, following the announcement that Elon Musk would be buying Twitter.

The announcement about the Board has created such a furor in response, Mayorkas has been delegated to clean it up and describe it as something that we need not fear. It’s a good thing, you see, according to Mayorkas, despite what you might think about the government determining what constitutes “disinformation.”

Mayorkas hit CNN’s “State of the Union” with Dana Bash,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” with Chuck Todd, and “Fox News Sunday” with Bret Baier.

Mayorkas said, “The fact is that disinformation that creates a threat to the security of the homeland is our responsibility to address.” This still leaves the problem that the government is determining what constitutes “disinformation,” so Bash pressed him on it.

Mayorkas said the board will be an internal “working group” that looks at “best practices” (what exactly are best practices for government determining what disinformation is, when they’re not supposed to be doing that?) and communicating it to the “operators.” Who are the “operators” and what are they doing?

It sounds like he’s playing word games. It’s the DHS which is an enforcement arm of the government, and the operators are the “enforcers.”

Then, he blew any remaining credibility he may have had by claiming that Nina Jankowicz, the person who would head this Ministry of Truth, was “eminently qualified” and “absolutely” neutral politically.

We already know what a lie that is, based on what we have seen of her social media posts and background. As we previously reported, she herself pushed false information about the Hunter Biden laptop. Here’s just a reminder of who we’re talking about as the head of this board — this nutty person, who thinks that there hasn’t been enough censorship on social media.

Bash asked if President Donald Trump got back in office, whether he would still be in favor of such a thing. Mayorkas avoids the question and gives a ‘through the looking-glass’ response — that the board would actually “safeguard speech.” Does anyone believe that?

Bret Baier plumbed how they were going to determine what disinformation was by asking Mayorkas a great question. “Was the Steele Dossier disinformation?” Baier asked.

Mayorkas just skewered the alleged purpose of his board by saying that it wasn’t up to him to determine that. So if it isn’t, then you’re saying you don’t even know what disinformation is while claiming to be addressing it.

Let’s also remember what was said about the Board already, by Mayorkas and Jen Psaki – that it was about preventing the “disinformation” from spreading around the country in a range of communities. So, how does that not involve Americans and the information that they are absorbing and sharing?

They’re just full of it and backpedaling at this point, trying to find an acceptable way to phrase it.

Here’s another thing. Aren’t these the same folks who went along with a phony story about their own DHS border patrol agents whipping illegal aliens while on horseback? Why, yes, they are. There was such a furor over the false story, Mayorkas — who had initially stood with his people — said there would be a formal investigation, despite the fact the agents had done no such thing and that was evident on the video and from the photographer who took the pictures. Joe Biden and other Democrats lied about the agents. How did the DHS do with that disinformation? They never said it was a lie, and while they cleared them of any criminal wrongdoing, they’re still being investigated internally. That’s ridiculous. But these are the folks who want to tell us what disinformation is? They are masters of it.

They think that freedom of the press refers only to them. It does not. It is a right for all of us that doesn't need to be "governed."

I've been saying this for a long time.

Here is an older post of mine that expresses my thoughts on that.
The notion that "freedom of the press" refers to the trade of journalism is incorrect. Usage of the phrase "the press" to refer to newspapermen didn't originate until the early 1900s.
The origins of the first amendment reference to "freedom of the press" literally refers to the machine, the printing press.
All the rights of individuals in the first amendment should be taken together as different sides of the same concept:
"abridging the freedom of speech" quite literally meant speech as far as crowds of people could hear you. It's the proverbial person standing on a soapbox in the town square shouting his opinions to others.
"the right of the people to peaceably assemble" means literally to stand together to hear a speaker speak. During colonial British rule, a group of people seen together in public would be suspected as being conspirators against the Crown. Free speech does no good if the People aren't allowed to congregate to hear you.
"freedom of the press" meant the right of anyone to publish. Spoken word only traveled as far as one could hear it. Printing one's thoughts and distributing them across the colonies extended the reach of thought, and therefore, its influence.
"the freedom to worship" combines the above three, publishing the tenets of a religion, gathering in common prayer, and speaking about one's beliefs to others.
"the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances" meant using the freedoms of speech, press, and assembly to call out when the federal government exceeded its Constitutional authority.
"Journalism," or "the press" as they like to refer to themselves, is an amalgam of these rights. It's an industry that uses free speech and free press to report on the activities of government through the way government interacts with and impacts the people, as well as reporting on the assemblies of people with each other.
But ultimately, freedom of the press is the peoples' right to publish, not CNN's right to special protections. If this journalist is saying that CNN has a right to publish innuendo and smear, then we ALL do.
Follow-up thoughts with links:
The origin of the term "the press" to refer to periodicals and journalism generally (see also the so-called Fourth Estate) didn't begin until the 1800s. The usage in reference specifically to reporters and journalists collectively didn't begin until the early 1900s.
At the time of the Framers of the Constitution, "the press" meant the printing press, and "freedom of the press" meant the right of citizens to publish, sharing their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs beyond the range of simple speech in a town square. Many examples of this were "citizen journalists," journaling the goings on in their communities, and sharing opinions on them with the other colonies.
"Freedom of the press" was meant to ban the federal government from stopping Americans from mass communicating, not to enshrine a special class of "journalists" as watchdogs over the government. All citizens were watchdogs, just as we do here on Free Republic.

Benjamin Franklin's thoughts on freedom of the press, from the same linked thread:

What's interesting in Franklin's original piece is that the "court" he is referring to is the so-called court of public opinion.
The "press" is not a class of journalists as it is known today; it was the citizen journalist who had something to say. Quoting Franklin:
In whose favor and for whose emolument this court is established? In favor of about one citizen in 500, who by education, or practice in scribbling, has acquired a tolerable stile as to grammar and construction so as to bear printing; or who is possessed of a press and a few types? This 500th part of the citizens have the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure; or they may hire out their pens and press to others for that purpose...
It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens; for this court is above that council, and may accuse, judge, and condemn it, at pleasure. Nor is it hereditary, as in the court of dernier resort, in the peerage of England. But any man who can procure pen, ink, and paper, with a press, and a huge pair of BLACKING balls, may commissionate himself: And his court is immediately established in the plenary possession and exercise of its rights.

Just as Franklin suggested, today's "one citizen in 500" class of elitist "journalists" regularly engage in what Franklin called "the privilege of accusing and abusing the other 499 parts, at their pleasure." That's what Twitter was for, and that's why conservatives were deplatformed, shadow banned, and censored from responding in kind.

What was really prescient was Franklin's warning:

It is not by any Commission from the Supreme Executive Council, who might previously judge of the abilities, integrity, knowledge, &c. of the persons to be appointed to this great trust, of deciding upon the characters and good fame of the citizens;

This is EXACTLY what Biden's new Disinformation Governance Board is setting itself up to do.

We should heed Franklin's words.

-PJ

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.