Project for Good Information and the Disinformation Era

It is clear that we are living in a post-truth era where veracity is in the eye of the groups responsible for ensuring that we are not exposed to disinformation.  As I have posted in the past, the various organizations that have been brought to life to prevent the spread of so-called fake news all have their own agendas and filter the truth through the eyes of their financial backers.  In this posting, we'll look at another group that is receiving funding from one of the world's wealthiest, liberal individuals.

 

Project for Good Information aka PGI was founded by 35-year-old Tara McGowan, a Democratic strategist in 2021.  Good Information Inc., it's "subsidiary" was formed for the purpose of investing in local news companies to provide the world with "fact-based information".  McGowan was the former head and co-founder of ACRONYM, a Washington-based non-profit which is "committed to building power and digital infrastructure for the progressive movement".  It was founded in 2017 and, since then, has run dozens of targeted media programs to "educate, inspire, register and mobilize voters", obviously of the Democratic bent.  In 2018, ACRONYM and its affiliated PAC, PACRONYM helped to elect progressive (Democratic since they are the only progressive people in the United States) candidates across the United States.  In 2020, PACRONYM ran one of the largest digital campaigns to defeat Donald Trump, spending nearly $100 million to persuade swing state voters as shown here:

 

...and here:

 

In 2019, ACRONYM launched Courier Newsroom, a for-profit online digital news property with the following aim:

 

"The media ecosystem in our country has changed and has led to rampant disinformation that has influenced millions of people, causing widespread distrust in our democratic institutions, in the facts — and in each other. 

 

Without trust, America’s future is under threat, including the ability to build a country, a government, and a society that works for everyone. 

 

Courier Newsroom is a civic media company that protects and strengthens our democracy through credible, fact-based journalism that seeks to create a more informed, engaged, and representative America. Under the direction of Courier Newsroom’s executive leadership team, our eight local newsrooms provide the communities we serve—including the people who live in information silos—with news centered on the people and policies affecting their lives. Our reporting is produced for the social media platforms and online channels our audiences spend their time on, with an emphasis on video, graphics, and skimmable newsletters to inform and engage our audiences in the ways they consume information today." 

 

Here are their values:

 

1.) Our reporting will be rooted in facts, science, and the communities our newsrooms serve.

2.) We will strive to tell the truth and will tell you when we get it wrong, because we believe that good information is the lifeblood of democracy, and that democracy will fail when factual journalism is out of reach. 

3.) We will be intentional about centering the voices of the people in our communities, using our platforms to amplify their experiences and opinions, especially those who are most impacted by the issues being decided in their statehouses and in Washington. 

4.) As a civic news organization, our journalists will focus their reporting around efforts to strengthen communities, rebuild struggling economies, expand access to health care and child care, address the climate crisis, and reduce inequality in all forms—and covering the leaders championing those efforts.  We will be relentless in our coverage of attempts or actions to undermine democratic institutions, especially voting rights, and ballot access, and we will make a special effort to report on public actors who are advancing those efforts.

5.) We will never manufacture “both sides” to our stories, giving equal weight to conspiracy theories or junk science. We will always provide proper context in our reporting to help ensure we don’t continue the spread of misinformation or disinformation.

6.) We will be committed to holding accountable elected officials or politicians who betray our values, cause harm, or seek to cause harm to the communities we serve. 

7.) We will not use political jargon; instead, we will work to break down inaccessible political language for our audiences.

8.) We will publish our work where our audiences are: When they move to new platforms or technologies, our brands and journalists will follow.

9.) We will prioritize hiring and contracting reporters, editors, and producers who live in the communities we serve, and we will remain committed to staffing our teams and sourcing our stories with the people who reflect the diverse and inclusive country in which we reside.

 

Here is the team behind Courier Newsroom:

 

It's pretty obvious from this background that, given McGowan's history with Courier Newsroom that the Project for Good Information is leaning hard to the left side of the political theatre that is Washington.  Interestingly, Courier Newsroom found itself the target of a complaint to the FEC over its violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act as shown here:

...largely because its activities were seen to be more like a Political Action Committee (PAC) than a media outlet, acting as an informal arm of the Democratic Party.

 

Let's go back to Project for Good Information.  According to information seen by VOX, this new entity consists of two separate entities: 

 

1.) a 501(c)(3) public foundation called the Good Information Project which exists to grant funding to nonprofit media companies although, according to AXIOS, McGowan denies the formation of a non-profit arm.

 

2.) a public benefit or B Corp called Good Information Inc. which will invest in for-profit media companies.

 

As part of the new deal, Good Information Inc. has acquired Courier Newsroom and For What It's Worth or FWIW, .  PGI plans to raise a total of $65 million with $35 million going to the B Corp, $25 million for the 501(c)(3) and $5 million dedicated to a two-year operating budget accordant to a promotional memo seen by Vox.

 

To close, here is a screen capture from Influence Watch with background on Project for Good Information:

 

And, last but not least, according to Politico and Axios, two of PGI's backers are billionaire Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn and none other than George Soros, billionaire "philanthropist" who describes himself as an "international supporter of democratic ideals and causes".

  

Given McGowan's history and political bias and the political bent of two of her financial backers as I noted above, if it's good information that you're looking for, then perhaps you'd better look elsewhere.

Donald Trump: The Truth is in the Eye of the Beholder

The anti- and pro-Trump bias in the media has reached the point where it is difficult to ascertain the truth.  This became blatantly obvious during the pre-amble to the recent G20 summit when Donald Trump gave a press conference on the eve of his first face-to-face meeting with Russia's President, Vladimir Putin and a speech given to the Polish people after his meeting with Poland after his meeting with Poland's President, Andrezej Duda.  Let's look at the coverage of Trump's visit to Poland from the anti- and pro-Trump angles:

1.) Think Progress:

A quote:

"On the eve of his first meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Trump held a press conference in Poland and declared that “nobody really knows” who meddled in the 2016 election.

Trump’s assessment breaks sharply from the U.S. intelligence community, which has pinned the blame squarely on Russia.

Trump was asked: “Will you once and for all, yes or no, say that Russia definitive interfered with the 2016 election.”

He refused to do so, saying that “it could have been other people in other countries....

Trump then turned his attention to the media, saying “many of your compatriots had to change their reporting and apologize and they had to correct” their reporting on Russian interference. (Trump is referring to this technical correction by the AP, regarding how many agencies were actively involved in the intelligence assessment, which doesn’t actually speak to the issue of Russian involvement.)

Trump then used that as a jumping off point for casting more doubt on Russian interference. “Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows for sure,” Trump said....

Trump’s response — while internally incoherent — will likely please Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has denied involvement in election-related hacking." (my bold)

2.) The Atlantic:

A quote:

"In his speech in Poland on Thursday, Donald Trump referred 10 times to “the West” and five times to “our civilization.” His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means. It’s important that other Americans do, too....

The most shocking sentence in Trump’s speech—perhaps the most shocking sentence in any presidential speech delivered on foreign soil in my lifetime—was his claim that “The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive.” On its face, that’s absurd. Jihadist terrorists can kill people in the West, but unlike Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, they cannot topple even the weakest European government. Jihadists control no great armies. Their ideologies have limited appeal even among the Muslims they target with their propaganda. ISIS has all but lost Mosul and could lose Raqqa later this year." (my bold)

3.) Washington Examiner:

A quote:

"This was a speech filled with remarkably apt references to Polish history, a subject surely few people suspected the president came to office familiar with. There were multiple references to Pulaski and Kosciusko, the Poles who crossed the Atlantic to fight for American independence, and to the Miracle of Vistula in 1920, when the Polish army under General Pilsudski repelled a Soviet invasion.

Trump recounted Pope John Paul II's 1979 sermon before 1 million of his fellow Poles and how they responded by chanting, "We want God." "Poland is the story of a people who have never lost hope, who have never been broken, and who have never, ever forgotten who they are."

It's interesting that a president who proclaims he serves "America first" should make a point of hailing Polish nationalism. It provides credibility to Trump appointees who say that "America first" does not mean "America alone." It shows that an American nationalist can appreciate and admire another nation's nationalism....

More than these historic references, Putin must dislike Trump's call for Russia to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes —including Syria and Iran."

4.) Fox News:

A quote:

"Ronald Reagan is nodding.  If anyone doubted President Trump’s grasp of history, doubt no more.   Today, on the site of the Warsaw Uprising, in the heart of democratic Poland, President Trump gave the most powerful speech of his presidency.

In an echo of Reagan’s “tear down this wall” speech given 30 years ago last month, President Trump declared Poland’s defense of freedom and Western values an enduring “symbol of hope.”  He honored the Polish people, their character and their patriots in a time of shared threats.

Then, he did more.  As Reagan challenged the Soviet communist ideology, predicting it would end on the “ash heap of history,” Trump extended his Middle East call to unity.  He declared “radical Islamic terror” an “oppressive ideology” doomed by its own inherent evil and “violence against innocents.”

Obviously, unless you are an individual that has the time or inclination to survey several news sources on a daily basis, your impression/approval of Donald Trump will vary with the bias of the news source that you read.  Unfortunately, the purveyors of what passes for editorializing and news know that most Americans (and people from other nations) will never actually take the time to ensure that news coverage is accurate.

  

So, in light of this reality, here is a video of his speech to the Polish people:

Here is a video of the press conference held with Polish President Duda on June 7, 2017:

It is becoming increasingly apparent that American voters who are truly interested in an unbiased opinion of Donald Trump's performance have no choice but to go to the original source of his comments to ensure that they are avoiding mainstream (and not so mainstream) media propagandizing.  It's pretty obvious that the United States media is becoming viciously biased in their coverage, a fact that is doing no favours to anyone who wants the truth.  Always remember, the truth is in the eye of the beholder.

The American Press and the Perception of Political Fairness

A recent survey of Americans by the Pew Research Centre asked whether voters thought that the press had been fair to the presidential candidates.  With growing political polarization in the United States, this is a rather interesting and timely topic.

As background, the total sample included 1005 individuals, 249 who identified themselves as Republicans, 336 who identified themselves as Democrats and 355 who identified themselves as Independents.  A combination of landline and cell randomly dialled samples were used and the total survey is considered accurate to within plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Nearly half of those surveyed (46 percent) stated that they felt that the coverage of Mitt Romney has been fair.  As well, the same percentage stated that they felt that the coverage of President Obama has been fair.  The difference lies among those who feel that the press is biased; 20 percent feel that the press has been too easy on Romney and 21 percent feel that the press has been too tough on him.  In contrast, nearly 28 percent of those surveyed felt that the press coverage of President Obama has been too easy compared to only 15 percent who felt that coverage had been too tough.

If we look back at the 2008 election, 23 percent of all voters surveyed thought that the press was too tough on John McCain compared to only 15 percent who thought that the press was being too easy.  In 2008, only 7 percent of all voters surveyed thought that the press was too tough on candidate Obama and 31 percent thought that the press was too easy.

Here is a chart showing a summary of the data for both election cycles:

Those who identified themselves as Republican tended to be more critical of press coverage than their Democratic counterparts; 45 percent of Republicans think that the press has been too tough on Mitt Romney (think about the recent video release!).  This is about the same level as during the 2008 election when 44 percent of Republicans thought that the press was biased against John McCain.  In sharp contrast, only 26 percent of Democrats think that the press has been too hard on Obama; that said, this is up markedly from the 2008 election when only 9 percent of Democrats thought that the press was biased against candidate Obama.

Even more interesting is the number of Republicans that feel that Obama is getting a "pass" by the press.  A hefty 60 percent of Republicans feel that coverage of Obama is "too easy", again, sharply contrasting the 29 percent of Democrats that feel that the press has been biased in favour of Mitt Romney.

The results of this polling give us an intriguing look at how American voters view media bias, particularly as it pertains to the candidate of their choosing.  It should not be terribly surprising that at least some of America's most influential media outlets are up front about their political leanings, an issue that is particularly noticeable now that "journalists" have 24 hour news cycles to fill.