The “Global Disinformation Index” Seeks to Censor Accurate Information

“To reduce disinformation, we need to remove the financial incentive to create it,” The Global Disinformation Index declares You can find its mission page. The Washington Examiner Exposed last week, the self-appointed arbiter of truth doesn’t seek to silence the legacy corporate outlets that repeatedly peddled false stories. Instead, it calls for widespread censorship against conservative websites that correct those stories by branding right-leaning ones. “riskiest” When it comes down to “disinformation.”

It’s not only new outlets for conservatives that are “risky,” however. And it isn’t even “disinformation” that’s risky: Disinformation — whatever that means — can be countered with the truth. What is the truth? It is It is risky to believe that experts can either dictate what is deceptive or declare that such speech should not be allowed. 

A simple graphic from the GDI’s Summary Its “Disinformation Risk in the United States Online Media Market,” This explains the implications of GDI’s censorship approach by stating that if the outlets GDI wants to silence were not muted, the public wouldn’t be informed about important questions regarding national security, government malfeasance and corruption as well as major policy issues. 

For instance, compare the two first media outlets GDI identifies with the “least risky sites” And “riskiest sites” — NPR and the New York Post, respectively — and their coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story. The New York Post reported the story and provided detailed analysis of material from the MacBook that was found. This material implicated Joe Biden, then-presidential candidate, in a pay to play scandal. 

In contrast, NPR declared Twitter did not cover the Hunter Biden story. “we don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.” NPR’s failure to initially cover the story caused the government-funded outlet to remain ignorant of the basic facts, prompting NPR to later falsely Report that the documents recovered from Hunter Biden’s laptop had been “discredited by U.S. intelligence.” NPR issued a correction to that disinformation later.

In general, the outlets on the left — both politically and in GDI’s graphic — either ignored the Biden family scandal or spun the story as representing Russian disinformation, with The Washington Post’s so-called fact-checker even framing the New York Post’s breaking news inaccurately as “hacked or leaked material.” The “riskiest sites,” Instead, they reported the story and looked deeper for additional information. 

In addition to the corporate legacy outlets limiting their reporting on the materials contained on the abandoned laptop that suggested Joe Biden profited from Hunter’s foreign business ventures, Twitter censored the story, and Facebook limited visibility of the scandal. Such censorship had serious consequences: Half of the respondents who were surveyed after Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, revealed the details behind the efforts to block the New York Post story said they would have Voted They might have been different if they had known about the Biden family’s true story. 

A number of legacy outlets, which had previously refused to cover this story on the laptop have since acknowledged it. Genuineness The laptop was still available more than a year after the election. But without the New York Post’s original coverage, The New York Times and the other supposed standard-bearers of journalism never would have covered the story. American public and the Congressional Oversight Committee wouldn’t have been aware of the serious national security risks and apparent Biden family corruption.

This is America’s future, if GDI succeeds on its mission. Promising To “cut off disinformation ad revenue streams enabling its redirection to higher quality news.” What is GDI’s plan to demonetize and eliminate media outlets? British-based company boasts that “ad techs” Use its data to “divert money away from disinforming domains.” “Advertisers” rely on GDI’s “trusted risk rating” Advertisements can be placed by “platforms and search engines,” “incorporate risk signal into their products and trust and safety teams.”

The New York Post’s coverage of the Hunter Biden story represents but one of many important stories covered accurately by the “riskiest sites,” In contrast to the fake reporting and narratives that are spread by the outlets deemed the “least risky sites.” The Russia-collusion hoax and the Justice Department and FBI’s abuse of the FISA Court system to unconstitutionally surveil the innocent American and CIA source Carter Page provide the most expansive illustration of the inaccurate reporting peddled by The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, and the other sites GDI deems providers of “higher quality news.”

Not only did those outlets get the story wrong, but in the case of USA Today — when provided a detailed analysis exposing the Russia-collusion hoax, supported by original source documentation — the outlet Refused The publication Truth. That’s because it, like the GDI, branded The Federalist, which was cited in support of the Editorial the newspaper had preliminarily approved, “not reliable.” But as the inspector general’s report would later confirm, both the proposed editorial The Federalist published the articles underlying them with 100 percent accuracy. 

If the GDI wins and The Federalist is silenced then the truth will also be revealed. USA Today and other herd-following outlets won’t publish stories that are contrary to the narratives pushed out by the Federalist. “least risky sites.”

Who will then expose the lies told by those? “least risky sites,” such as The New York Times, which began running a preemptive hit on former Attorney General William Barr and Special Counsel John Durham in anticipation of a likely damaging report on the DOJ and FBI’s malfeasance in their investigation into Donald Trump? There are many. False and illogical charges against Barr and Durham was the Times’ False and blatant representation that the two men had inappropriately discussed Durham’s investigation. Americans didn’t see the other “least risky sites” analyze the special counsel regulations, which, had they done so, would have established that the Times’ accusation of impropriety was unfounded. Federalist But it worked. 

The Federalist also looked deeper to find the client represented in the legal representation used by the Times to attack Barr and Durham. Lo and behold! Take a lookUnnamed clients were actually part of the Russia-collusion scam. Relying on the spin of Halper’s lawyer over the former attorney general and a well-respected former U.S. attorney sure seems a risky move for the Old Gray Lady!

Time and again, the supposedly less risky outlets pushed false narratives, whether about Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation battle, Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife and nonexistent conflicts of interest, or Devin Nunes and his battle to expose FISA abuse.

The origins of Covid, the inability of the Covid shot to prevent transmission of the virus, the lack of efficacy of cloth masks, and the predictable harm of masks and lockdowns on children — these were all things the “riskiest sites” Right while the “less risky” The stories were fabricated by others. As well, the “higher quality news sites” While they continue to claim that males are capable of becoming females, and vice versa. The websites GDI seeks obstruct highlight the science behind the trans ideology and the severe consequences it has on children.

The GDI doesn’t seek to prevent disinformation; it seeks to censor accurate information. That’s what is truly risky. 

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She has also contributed to National Review Online and Washington Examiner. Aleteia and Townhall.com. Her work has also been published in USA Today and Wall Street Journal.

Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. Later, she served as a permanent law clerk on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for almost 25 years. Cleveland, a former faculty member at a university full-time, now teaches as an adjunct.

Cleveland, a stay-at home mom to a boy with cystic fibrosis and a special-needs child, writes often about cultural issues. Follow Cleveland on Twitter @ProfMJCleveland These views are hers in private.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases