NPR’s Michel Martin interviewed Nina Jankowicz on Tuesday’s edition of Amanpour and Company on PBS and CNN International and wondered what brought about the demise of the Disinformation Governance Board. For Jankowicz the answer was partly sexism and partly the Biden Administration not being willing to fight back against critics of the board.
Martin claimed to understand that trolls would attack Jankowicz to harm her, but wondered why elected officials would also attack her, “But to have elected officials, you know, why do you think this approach was the approach that they took? And why do you think -- and frankly, it has to be asked, why do you think the department was caught so flat-footed?”
For Jankowicz, it wasn’t that she was a liberal partisan in charge of something with an Orwellian name, who had spread misinformation herself, but sexism, “on the case of the officials, this is just the way that our politics has become. It's become extremely personalized as you noted, Michel. And I think I'm a great main character for them. I have been opinionated, I'm a young woman, I have expressed myself online authentically, including, you know, posting videos, singing and things like that. It's easy for them to attack me and to belittle me and to make fun of me.”
She then condemned the Department of Homeland Security for doing a lousy job of explain what exactly the board would do, “And in the absence of information that the department did not put out about what the board was going to do, it was easy to whip up that outrage against me personally and again, make me the main character of the campaign. It was just too easy for them.”
Martin also thought there could be sexism present, considering Jankowicz wrote a book on the subject, “I’m still curious of this question of why was the administration's response so flat-footed as -- because, you know, you are the expert in this, you are one of the country's if not the world's leading experts in this. You wrote a whole book about How to Lose the Information War and How to be a Woman Online, which is your latest book. And yet, you are the target of all the strategies that you wrote about. And I just have to ask, I don't understand that, do you?”
Apparently no man has ever been mocked for his singing before, but Jankowicz also hit the Biden Administration from the left, questioning its commitment to battling disinformation, “No, frankly, Michel, I don't… even after these attacks started, I had given the department guidance about how to deal with them. And unfortunately, the guidance wasn't heeded. ... I would’ve been happy to continue to take those attacks if I felt that the administration were invested in this fight. But I don't necessarily feel that anymore.”
Earlier in the segment, Jankowicz tried to have it both ways, acknowledging she is not above criticism, but also condemning people for criticizing her while being 39 weeks pregnant. That’s why the board failed, someone who dresses up as a non-partisan, but who acts like a partisan in charge of something called the Disinformation Governance Board.
This segment was sponsored by viewers like you.
Here is a transcript for the May 24 show:
PBS Amanpour and Company
5/24/2022
11:41 PM ET
MICHEL MARTIN: It's depressing and disturbing enough for these far-right trolls to be putting your personal information out there. Basically, encouraging people to harm you. That's what that is, that's what that’s for. But to have elected officials, you know, why do you think this approach was the approach that they took? And why do you think -- and frankly, it has to be asked, why do you think the department was caught so flat-footed?
NINA JANKOWICZ: Yeah. Well, on the case of the officials, this is just the way that our politics has become. It's become extremely personalized as you noted, Michel. And I think I'm a great main character for them. I have been opinionated, I'm a young woman, I have expressed myself online authentically, including, you know, posting videos, singing and things like that. It's easy for them to attack me and to belittle me and to make fun of me.
And in the absence of information that the department did not put out about what the board was going to do, it was easy to whip up that outrage against me personally and again, make me the main character of the campaign. It was just too easy for them. Where there was a lack of information elsewhere.
And the department, you know, it's a very large department, 250,000 people work at the Department Homeland Security. It has many different priorities and equities, as I mentioned before. And I think as the rollout was happening, there were other priorities. And then, in responding to these attacks, it's kind of a delicate dance, right? You don't want to give too much credence to the absurd things that people are saying, especially when they're completely false. But you do need to respond rapidly and provide information where it's being requested. And the department wasn’t able to do that.
So, I think what we see here is the desire on the behalf of the government to fight disinformation but a misunderstanding of, you know, the nuts and bolts of how to do it. You cannot just put out a fact sheet and especially when there’s this, you know, huge distrust between Americans and the government right now, hope that Americans are going to buy into everything that's in that fact sheet. You need to tell a better story, you need to do it quickly, rapidly, openly and transparently.
MARTIN: Well, but I guess I’m still curious of this question of why was the administration's response so flat-footed as -- because, you know, you are the expert in this, you are one of the country's if not the world's leading experts in this. You wrote a whole book about How to Lose the Information War and How to be a Woman Online, which is your latest book. And yet, you are the target of all the strategies that you wrote about. And I just have to ask, I don't understand that, do you?
JANKOWICZ: No, frankly, Michel, I don't. I had tried throughout my time at the department, which was almost three months, sometime before the rollout happened to guide the rollout in a way that I thought would be most effective. And even after these attacks started, I had given the department guidance about how to deal with them. And unfortunately, the guidance wasn't heeded.
And this, again, speaks into the disproportionate nature of the attacks against me, seeing me as this kind of a huge figurehead in the department. When in reality, I was, you know, a high-ranking civil servant but not somebody who had been Senate confirmed. There are many levels of decision-
makers above me, and the decisions got made above—above-- my pay grade, frankly. And, you know, I ended up being collateral. I would’ve been happy to continue to take those attacks if I felt that the administration were invested in this fight. But I don't necessarily feel that anymore.
