View Full Version : The Ministry of Truth
iris lilies
5-2-22, 11:07am
Well folks, we are finally there. TruthSpeak is now an official federal government mandate.
Our President Biden created a czar of disinformation who will determine what is TRUE and what is UNTRUE.
wow, this is a precedent that makes me VERY uncomfortable. And honestly it doesn’t really matter which political side runs it because the TRUTH will vary depending on who is in The White House.
If you think President Trump in his next term is going to cut that position, think again.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/29/dont-trust-the-government-00029103
It's not like we don't have a lot of fact checking websites out there.
The “Disinformation Governance Board”. Wow.
ApatheticNoMore
5-2-22, 1:03pm
I don't know, how is this anything new under the sun? Because it's something people want to panic about today?
I mean the U.S. government produces propaganda and always has, mostly about foreign policy. It does that now. What exactly did anyone think The Voice of America was? And it has been allowed for a long time to use this propaganda in the u.s., this was that Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.
And really does one expect them NOT to counter Russian propaganda when the U.S. is escalating in war with Russia (yes a war initially caused by Russian invasion of Ukraine, yes things seem to be escalating in terms of u.s. involvement)? I am not saying I favor this escalation, I can't see much good coming of it, what is the end goal? But it is the situation. And being that, one then expects the u.s. to declare informational one-sided disarmament?
As far as bias goes, Politico does tend to lean slightly to the left... in case you were wondering (from Questioned answered website).
iris lilies
5-2-22, 8:00pm
As far as bias goes, Politico does tend to lean slightly to the left... in case you were wondering (from Questioned answered website).
Yes, I was careful to select a “non-biased” i.e. lefty presentation of the Ministry of truth. Because otherwise it would be shooting the messenger for ya’ll.
Americans are so cute with their self-perceived "left/right" scale.
Americans are so cute with their self-perceived "left/right" scale.
I think social, cultural and political norms vary somewhat between countries so Americans can usually have a pretty good sense where something or someone rests on the "left/right" scale without being expected to factor in another country's norms. I'm not sure "cute" is the word to describe thinking otherwise.
iris lilies
5-2-22, 10:52pm
As far as bias goes, Politico does tend to lean slightly to the left... in case you were wondering (from Questioned answered website).
And Politico just announced it obtained an early draft of the US Supreme Courts ruling on Roe versus Wade. The majority ruling is overturning Roe. I wonder, does that mean (if true) that states may regulate abortion however they wish?
And Politico just announced it obtained an early draft of the US Supreme Courts ruling on Roe versus Wade. The majority ruling is overturning Roe. I wonder, does that mean (if true) that states may regulate abortion however they wish?
Fun times.
And Politico just announced it obtained an early draft of the US Supreme Courts ruling on Roe versus Wade. The majority ruling is overturning Roe. I wonder, does that mean (if true) that states may regulate abortion however they wish?
Maybe. They regulate our faces however they wish with their mask mandates.
Fun times.
More like....disgusting times!
Fun times.
"May you live in interesting times." Enough! Enough already!
ToomuchStuff
5-3-22, 10:19am
Roe verses Wade? I thought they issued a decision decades ago?
Has the supreme court, ever revisited a case they already decided on? They might have a different aspect on a similar case, but I didn't think they ever went back on their precedents. (I am sure that new justices haven't always agreed with former, however)
Roe verses Wade? I thought they issued a decision decades ago?
Has the supreme court, ever revisited a case they already decided on? They might have a different aspect on a similar case, but I didn't think they ever went back on their precedents.
It is rare, but has happened ~150 times over the years.
Roe verses Wade? I thought they issued a decision decades ago?
Has the supreme court, ever revisited a case they already decided on? They might have a different aspect on a similar case, but I didn't think they ever went back on their precedents. (I am sure that new justices haven't always agreed with former, however)
Sure they do. They reversed Plessy v. Ferguson.
As far as bias goes, Politico does tend to lean slightly to the left... in case you were wondering (from Questioned answered website).
LOL. That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Next thing you're going to tell me is that fox news is "fair and balanced".
iris lilies
5-3-22, 11:09pm
LOL. That's the funniest thing I've read all week. Next thing you're going to tell me is that fox news is "fair and balanced".
The source I read said Politico is moderate to left leaning. You don’t have to agree with that.
ApatheticNoMore
5-4-22, 1:05am
what leaning is it? I don't even know. Is this about the Axel Springer acquisition of Politico and how that may force journalists to comply with it's principles:
"1. We stand up for freedom, the rule of law, democracy and a united Europe.
2. We support the Jewish people and the right of the State of Israel to exist. [controversial if you want to write say a pro-Palestinian article]
3. We show our solidarity in the free community of values with the United States of America.
4. We are committed to a free and social market economy.
5. We reject political and religious extremism. "
But I don't think the acquisition has changed much really in Politico IMO.
Since the "leaked" opinion was confirmed to be accurate by the Chief Justice, I'm not sure what their "leaning" has to do with the substance of the matter, but it's a handy way to obfuscate the issue I suppose.
Oh, I think there’s plenty of tendentiousness among all the self-appointed fact checkers and truth guardians out there. I remember when a satirical website put out a story about the DNC purchasing industrial dryers to “spin the facts”, and the New York Times fact-checking it as “false”.
Though I’ll admit that when I first heard DHS was setting up an agency that among other things would denounce rumors that it was easy to sneak across the border, I thought it was a joke. Maybe they should have started with the bullwhip story.
I do agree with others here that have trouble accepting government as a reliable source of disinterested factuality. It’s just too funny to think of how such an agency will handle the President’s steady stream of gaffes.
It looks like the Biden administration's Ministry Of Truth has been put on pause and it's director has resigned. At least one early report says that it was shut down because of coordinated right wing attacks. I think the real reason was it is a rather nasty boil on the butt of democracy.
It was not a very good idea from the start. The Post said the woman who resigned had been subject to vile attacks and physical threats, which most probably came from some degree of right wingism. There's a possibility they might have uncovered somethings and maybe someone in the opposing GOP would like to hide things, but it would be unavoidably politicized to no positive end.
As an afterthought, it might have worked if it were an independent effort without political associations, like say the Supreme Court (joking).
iris lilies
5-18-22, 4:52pm
It looks like the Biden administration's Ministry Of Truth has been put on pause and it's director has resigned. At least one early report says that it was shut down because of coordinated right wing attacks. I think the real reason was it is a rather nasty boil on the butt of democracy.
This is cheerful news!
I understand the Biden people are “putting it on hold” in the hope it will be quickly forgotten. A lot of her previous statements defending the Steele dossier and the Russian collusion hoax, dismissing Hunter Biden’s laptop as Trump campaign material and promoting the left-leaning version of election trutherism started being published.
I doubt there were evil machinations involved here. I just think it dawned on the administration that they made the worst possible hire for an organization that served no practical purpose other than embarrassing the government. The idea that we needed a fact checker in chief and would rely on the government as the arbiter of truth was ridiculous from the start
iris lilies
5-19-22, 9:04am
I understand the Biden people are “putting it on hold” in the hope it will be quickly forgotten. A lot of her previous statements defending the Steele dossier and the Russian collusion hoax, dismissing Hunter Biden’s laptop as Trump campaign material and promoting the left-leaning version of election trutherism started being published.
I doubt there were evil machinations involved here. I just think it dawned on the administration that they made the worst possible hire for an organization that served no practical purpose other than embarrassing the government.
Yes, I read about how the Minister of Truth tweeted several falsehoods herself and got the job. This irony is so blatant that the Babylon Bee passed on it as being too obvious.
You can’t make this shit up.
I guess pointing out her own astonishing lack of truthfulness was part of the “coordinated right wing attack.”
Well, I see this as a victory for democracy. It is a good day to celebrate.
Teacher Terry
5-19-22, 10:00am
It’s good IL and Alan that this stupid idea was abandoned.
Yes, I read about how the Minister of Truth tweeted several falsehoods herself and got the job. This irony is so blatant that the Babylon Bee passed on it as being too obvious.
They ran a touching piece where she realized “she was the one she was looking for all along”.
It’s good IL and Alan that this stupid idea was abandoned.
I'm not sure that it's been abandoned, only put on pause. I'm guessing they're still evaluating the optics and will try again after they've corrected their initial mistakes. Those being giving the Director job to someone who enthusiastically flooded the internet with politically tainted misinformation while also suggesting others her department may approve be able to edit regular folks social media posts, and allowing the White House Press Secretary to suggest their role may also include dealing with information regarding Covid, inflation, unprecedented energy costs, etc., that the government deems to be incorrect.
I suspect a small army of bureaucrats are currently working on a re-branding campaign which will probably be introduced a few months before the mid-term elections to deal with those of us who have just recently been branded by the administration as Ultra-Maga, racist white nationalists, which seems to be everyone who doesn't support the Democratic Party.
ToomuchStuff
5-20-22, 8:45am
I wish I remembered how the question was worded; it was something like, "so you think it was shut down due to a disinformation campaign about it", which was what they person they asked, inferred.
I am not sure how you would rebrand it. Truth department of the homeland security agency, just reeks of an antisemitic government that we fought against, when long ago, we used to have journalists do this sort of thing, that people trusted.
To do that job that would be believable, their bosses, the half truth politicians would not like them, from any side.
iris lilies
5-20-22, 9:12am
I wish I remembered how the question was worded; it was something like, "so you think it was shut down due to a disinformation campaign about it", which was what they person they asked, inferred.
I am not sure how you would rebrand it. Truth department of the homeland security agency, just reeks of an antisemitic government that we fought against, when long ago, we used to have journalists do this sort of thing, that people trusted.
To do that job that would be believable, their bosses, the half truth politicians would not like them, from any side.
I think that is true to great extent, that “half truth politicians “do not have any news source in their pocket and hence do not love any particular new ps source.
But I also think it is important to realize that news sources are biased. That’s OK, everyone’s gonna have a bias. We might imagine that in the good old days of yore, Walter Cronkite and his buddies were not biased. But they were.
By simply choosing what to put on the air, that is a huge bias.
I wish I remembered how the question was worded; it was something like, "so you think it was shut down due to a disinformation campaign about it", which was what they person they asked, inferred.
If an organization with a mission to dispel disinformation can be strangled at birth by disinformation, it probably wouldn’t have been very effective anyway.
Personally, I don’t think it was disinformation that did them in. It was mockery.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.