On Wednesday’s edition of All in With Chris Hayes on MSNBC, the show’s namesake host welcomed Nina Jankowicz, who resigned from the paused Disinformation Governance Board. Both Hayes and Jankowicz lamented and alleged that the DGB fell victim to the sort of misinformation that went would seek to combat even with Hayes admitting the board had its issues.
In introducing Jankowicz, Hayes declared, “But almost immediately after the announcement, a right-wing frenzy ensued helped along I think by the vaguely ominous title of the office, and she found herself on the receiving end of a concerted campaign by the very same forces disinformation her office would face now attacking her and undermining her credibility with wild conspiracy theories and lies.”
Jankowicz in turn decried “all these sensationalist narratives” about the board and that all it was meant to do was help DHS’s subordinate agencies combat misinformation from the likes of China or Iran, “And frankly, it’s kind of ironic that the board itself was taken over by disinformation when it was meant to fight it.”
Still, for a brief moment, Hayes became self-aware:
So, just to sort of give the argument on the other side, I mean, when I was watching this play out and I was watching the frenzy developed, right, I sort of was running this thought experiment of like, well, how would I feel back in, you know, 2005 under the Bush administration. The Bush administration had announced this thing with this title, right? And they had appointed someone that I thought was, you know, a Republican or conservative and, you know, it felt like OK, well, here’s the use of the state, right, state power to patrol speech, were to claim things or disinformation that they don’t like. Like, what do you say to people that say, look, even if your intentions were good, or this was just bureaucratic, that even stepping into the zone poses some non-crazy alarms for folks that are concerned about that kind of thing?
That would seem like a good reason to not create the thing in the first place or at least put someone who isn’t a liberal partisan who has spread foreign disinformation herself in charge in charge.
Jankowicz repeated that the DGB was never set up to police speech, only that “I think, you know, it is important that our government get involved when we have real threats to our national security.”
Later, the duo concluded by lamenting the response not just to the board, but Jankowicz herself with Hayes wondering, “What was the experience of being the focal point of this sort of like, massive frenzy like over the last few weeks?”
Jankowicz reiterated her previous claims, “I have prided myself over my career of being a really nuanced, reasonable person... to say that I’m just a partisan actor was wildly out of context” and “beyond that, it wasn’t just, you know, these mischaracterizations of my work, but it was death threats against my family.”
While Jankowicz tries to hide her liberalism, Hayes should have stayed with his 2005 instincts.
This segment was sponsored by Philadelphia.
Here is a transcript for the May 18 show:
MSNBC All in With Chris Hayes
5/18/2022
8:52 AM ET
CHRIS HAYES: In April, the Department of Homeland Security announced the creation of a disinformation governance board. It would be an entity to work to combat the very real dangerous issue of disinformation online and elsewhere with a stated goal to “coordinate countering misinformation related to Homeland Security.” The woman appointed to lead that effort is a woman named Nina Jankowicz. She’s a former Disinformation Fellow at the Wilson Center, and the author of the book How to Lose the Information War, which is about international relations and disinformation.
But almost immediately after the announcement, a right-wing frenzy ensued helped along I think by the vaguely ominous title of the office, and she found herself on the receiving end of a concerted campaign by the very same forces disinformation her office would face now attacking her and undermining her credibility with wild conspiracy theories and lies. It was so much that yesterday, DHS announced the formation of the office had been put on hold. And this morning Nina Jankowicz resubmitted her resignation. Tonight, she joins me for her first television interview. Thanks for joining us. First, just to start at ground level, like, what was this thing that was announced and what was it going to do?
NINA JANKOWICZ: Well, Chris, it was going to do exactly what you said it. All these sensationalist narratives about what the board was -- what people thought the board was going to do are completely wrong. It was a coordinating mechanism. It was meant to, you know, make sure that the very large agency that is the Department of Homeland Security, that people were talking to each other within it.
So, let me give you an example. FEMA, the agency that handles disasters and environmental issues, would often counter misinformation about natural disasters. And let’s say, a foreign adversary like Iran or China, perhaps, would put out a narrative that says, oh, you know, here’s how you get out of this city, or here’s where you can find disaster aid. And that could put people really into danger, their lives into danger. That’s the sort of disinformation and misinformation that we were looking to support the department in addressing to make sure that they had best practices, and most importantly, to protect Americans’ freedom of speech, civil rights, civil liberties and privacy while we were doing all of that work. So, every characterization of the board that you’ve heard up until now has been incorrect. And frankly, it’s kind of ironic that the board itself was taken over by disinformation when it was meant to fight it.
HAYES: So, just to sort of give the argument on the other side, I mean, when I was watching this play out and I was watching the frenzy developed, right, I sort of was running this thought experiment of like, well, how would I feel back in, you know, 2005 under the Bush administration. The Bush administration had announced this thing with this title, right? And they had appointed someone that I thought was, you know, a Republican or conservative and, you know, it felt like OK, well, here’s the use of the state, right, state power to patrol speech, were to claim things or disinformation that they don’t like.
Like, what do you say to people that say, look, even if your intentions were good, or this was just bureaucratic, that even stepping into the zone poses some non-crazy alarms for folks that are concerned about that kind of thing?
JANKOWICZ: Well, I fully understand Americans concerns that they don’t want government involved in policing speech. And good news, this initiative wasn’t involved in policing speech, and neither was I. I think, you know, it is important that our government get involved when we have real threats to our national security.
So, it’s not just things like election interference, which we’ve seen in which DHS has combated also, but threats at the border, disinformation that is driving people to migrate here, disinformation that could affect critical infrastructure, like our financial systems and gas pipelines. All of that has very real effects for the safety of Americans. And frankly, I think DHS and other federal agencies need to be involved because this problem isn’t going away. It’s only getting worse.
HAYES: Well, here’s — so, let’s talk about combat because I think that word is interesting, right? Like, what does that mean, tangibly, right, if — when you say combat disinformation, because obviously we’re having an incredibly intense meta debate about speech and platforms, regulation and moderation there, you know, of them. So, what is — what is your vision or what would the board’s vision or anyone’s vision from a government perspective be to combat disinformation?
JANKOWICZ: A lot of the work that DHS has been doing for over a decade now is just about putting good information out there. Again, information about where Americans can seek disaster aid, information about where Americans can vote, information about the border not being open, for instance. So, that’s one thing that I had hoped that we would do and I’m also — I’ve spent a lot of my career, you know, testifying both before Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle advising foreign governments about how to build resilience in populations. People need the tools to navigate today’s information environment. It’s incredibly overwhelming and so, I had hoped that we would do some creative programs to equip people with the tools they need to find that information in today’s information environment, not to say what was true or false. That was never the intention.
HAYES: One more question on this, and then I want to ask about your personal experience. But what’s — how is disinformation — I’m sorry. How is disinformation as a category different than just stuff that’s wrong, right? Because sometimes I think that term itself, like, it’s a little bit of a fuzzy boundary, right? Like, people are wrong about lots of things. There’s lots of wrong stuff online. There’s wrong stuff said by people that I love. But why is it what is the category of disinformation that makes that distinct from wrong stuff?
JANKOWICZ: Yes, that’s a great question and something that often is mischaracterized as well. Disinformation is false or misleading information spread with malign intent. So, that’s when we have those bad actors are our foreign adversaries like China, Iran, maybe Russia spreading that stuff.
Misinformation is also harmful, but it’s when you know, Aunt Sally or Uncle John are spreading those rumors or conspiracy theories at the dinner table. It can have effects on people’s livelihoods and safety as well. But again, we were focused on disinformation, that disinformation spread with malign intent. And that wasn’t anything to do with politics. It was again where disinformation crossed Homeland Security and the safety of the American people.
HAYES: That’s — I think, it’s actually a really useful definitional distinction precisely to sort of put those at odds. Finally, we have about 90 seconds left. Like, I have watched this happen multiple times in my public life career. Van Jones when he was at the position of the White House, he was run out of office because he’d signed some petition and Shirley Sherrod who was an officer of the U.S. Department of Agriculture who said something wildly taken out of context. Like, what was the experience of being the focal point of this sort of like, massive frenzy like over the last few weeks?
JANKOWICZ: Well, it was really overwhelming, Chris. I mean, frankly, you know, I have prided myself over my career of being a really nuanced, reasonable person. Again, as I said, I’ve briefed and advised both Republicans and Democrats. I admire some of the steps that the Trump administration even took to combat disinformation, including Senator Rob Portman and his bills against deep fakes and, you know, funding the Global Engagement Center at the State Department.
So, to say that I’m just a partisan actor was wildly out of context. And then beyond that, it wasn’t just, you know, these mischaracterizations of my work, but it was death threats against my family. Over the last three weeks, I have had maybe had one or two days I didn’t report a violent threat, something like we’re coming for you and your family, you and your family should be sent to Russia to be killed, encouraged me — of me to commit suicide.
All of those have been forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security’s security services. And you know that’s not something that is American. That is not how we should be acting when we have disagreements about policy in this country. I think we need to learn how to be adults in the room. And I don’t have time for that childishness. I’m not going to let it silence me. I’m going to go forward and continue building awareness about this threat in the future.
HAYES: All right, Nina Jankowicz, I’m very sorry that happened to you, really. And thank you for taking some time tonight. I really appreciate it.
JANKOWICZ: Thanks for having me.
