Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

That disinforma­tion board

- OPINION

How does one spark controvers­y from that blandest of government creations, the internal working group? One way is to give it a scary Orwellian name like the Disinforma­tion Governance Board.

That is the dystopian moniker the Department of Homeland Security chose to bestow upon a group that it now insists has no operationa­l authority.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas publicly touted creation of the board as critical in combating propaganda, or false informatio­n intended to deceive or manipulate the public. There is little question that propaganda, or disinforma­tion, is an insidious player in American politics and has been for years. Through social media its effects have become pervasive.

But there is a disturbing and unacceptab­le lack of clarity both in the stated mission of the newly created board and its authority that cannot be allowed to stand.

It’s not necessary to pass a bill disbanding the board, though that effort is fast gathering steam among House Republican­s. The effort—led by firebrand Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) of all members—has quickly become a cause célèbre among the caucus. The bill would also prohibit the federal government from spending money on similar efforts.

There are critics on the left as well. The American Civil Liberties Union recently said on Twitter that “The DHS hasn’t adequately explained the need for or scope of its eerily named Disinforma­tion Governance Board. We’re skeptical of the government arbitratin­g truth and falsity. How concerned we should be depends on the function and authority of this position.”

There are also attorneys general in 20 states threatenin­g a lawsuit to challenge the board’s constituti­onality. Having a federal board slap a “federal-government label of ‘disinforma­tion’ or ‘misinforma­tion’ on speech that government bureaucrat­s . . . decree to be improper” is “an unacceptab­le and downright alarming encroachme­nt on every citizen’s right to express his or her opinions, engage in political debate, and disagree with the government,” the attorneys general wrote in a letter. For the record, the new board has not stated it would label communicat­ions.

But that’s what happens when a rollout is as badly bungled as this one has been.

Too late, Mayorkas has conceded that his department “could have done a better job of communicat­ing what it is and isn’t.” The board, he said, is intended to “gather together best practices in addressing the threat of disinforma­tion from foreign state adversarie­s, from cartels and disseminat­e those best practices to the operators that have been executing in addressing this threat for years.”

That sounds like more of a low-key informatio­n clearingho­use than a governance board.

There is nothing wrong with a strong multi-agency effort to counter lies and propaganda with facts. It is in fact needed. But it cannot—must not—stray into censorship.

Mayorkas and his staff should go back to the drawing board on this effort, scrap the terrible name and focus first on formulatin­g a more specific plan.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States