Last week, Axios announced the launch of a new organization, funded by George Soros and Reid Hoffman, reporting that “Good Information Inc” would “fund and scale businesses that cut through echo chambers with fact-based information.”
But even a first look at Good Information Inc.’s wireframe webpage and at it’s founder quickly quashes any illusion that the effort is an impartial one, or even one that prioritizes objective “facts.”
The homepage of the website lists various types of unapproved information: “bad information,” “Q information,” “dis-Information,” “fake information,” and “disproven information.” The phrases are presented alongside photos of Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, a polling place, vaccine mandate protesters, and the Jan. 6 incident at the Capitol.
The website then presents a list of statistics that it positions as being related:
- 96 million Americans believe the election was stolen
- 89 million Americans believe voter fraud is a major problem
- 264 million Americans can’t name their state legislators
- 109 million Americans can’t name their governor
- 185 million American’s don’t trust traditional media
The organization suggests that these factors demonstrate an “urgent need for regulation of social media platforms” and “Increased investment” in new “models” of media.
“Good Information Inc. will invest in and partner with media companies and platforms that center the communities they serve, their interests, and their media consumption habits in their reporting and their content distribution strategies,” the group explains.
The group is founded and led by former Democratic strategist Tara McGowan. McGowan is an advocate for “progressive media” and publicly purports that the media is biased — in favor of the political right.
Previously, McGowan founded ACRONYM, a group that supported left-leaning political causes by funding media and tech solutions, such as by running a $100 million digital campaign against President Trump in 2020.
Following the recent victory of Virginia governor-elect Glenn Youngkin, McGowan has been blaming the Democrat loss on media outlets she doesn’t like, claiming that “right-wing media” and a “structural imbalance in the media” that supposedly favors the political right, are to blame.
Youngkin won Virginia via a campaign that focused on education and parents’ rights—an issue that McGowan says was an imaginary controversy created “out of thin air” by “right-wing media” attempting to “prey on” the concerns of voters.
“How did education become a top issue for VA voters? Right-wing media,” said McGowan. “They create controversies out of thin air that prey on people’s existing fears, anxieties + biases, feed their base + keep Dems on defense, then all other media pile on. Every damn time.”
“Are we finally ready to support building progressive media at scale or should we keep doing the same shit and act surprised while we watch our countrydemocracyplanet burn….?,” McGowan tweeted on the night of the election.
“I find it interesting how reporters are finally willing to call out the structural imbalance in media, the power of right-wing media and its impact on public opinion + elections, but if you talk about building progressive, factual news, you’re tarred for ‘fighting fire with fire.’”
Working alongside McGowan on the Good Inc. advisory committee is Former Obama Senior Advisor Dan Pfieffer, and Former Obama White House Chief Digital Officer Jason Goldman.
Foreign-born population soars to new record under Biden; highest rate of immigrants since 1910
The U.S. has had a massive surge in immigration this year, with as many as 1.5 million newcomers and a record 46.2 million foreign-born people, according to a report for the Center for Immigration Studies.
After a deep trough last year, likely because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the travel and migration restrictions imposed to control the spread, the flow of people rebounded around the time President Biden was elected.
In numbers never seen before, they are coming legally through airports and land border crossings and illegally across the Rio Grande and remote regions of Arizona and California.
“There was pent-up demand for legal immigration, and illegal immigration has exploded in one of the greatest surges, if not the greatest, we’ve ever seen,” said Steven A. Camarota, the demographer who was the chief author of the report. “It’s driving the numbers up and up and up.”
As it stands, 14.2% of the U.S. population is foreign-born, or 1 out of every 7 people. That is the highest rate of immigrants in the population since 1910, when the number was 14.7%. At current trends, the government says, the U.S. will break that record well before the end of this decade.
Those numbers are even starker given the reversal of trends.
The data showed a drop of 1.2 million immigrants from February to September 2020, likely the result of coronavirus restrictions blocking new entrants, even as outmigration continued. That left the population of the foreign-born — the Census Bureau’s term — at 43.8 million.
It was up to 45 million by January and marched steadily to the current 46.2 million total shown for last month.
In the year after President Trump’s election, the immigrant population flattened.
Mashup: MSM worst moments of 2021
Salvation Army’s Internal Survey Suggests Only Whites Are Racist
“I Took The Salvation Army’s Internal Survey On ‘Racism’ Within The Organization. Here’s What I Discovered.”
The Salvation Army has recently come under significant fire for asking white donors to “offer a sincere apology” for racism. The nearly 150-year old organization created a curriculum entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism” and shared it with its members, along with associated DEI Trainings that cite and draw from Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi’s work. The packet argues that Christians should “stop trying to be ‘colorblind’” and that they should apologize for being “antagonistic.. to black people or the culture, values and interests of the black community.” In response, donors by the thousands have vowed not to donate until the organization reverses their stance.
The Salvation Army has denied any wrongdoing, defiantly calling the allegations that they have gone woke “false.” While they admit that the topic of race in America can be fraught with controversy, they have denied they have “gone woke.” Much of their denial centers around their claim that use of the guide was completely voluntary, and that they are not peddling critical race narratives in their organization.
I obtained a copy of The Salvation Army’s internal survey on “racism within the Salvation Army” and tested that claim.
One Salvation Army officer reached out on condition of anonymity to Color Us United, the raceblind advocacy organization which I run, to reveal an internal survey he was asked to take. It was not a voluntary survey, and was sent by the Territorial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary to every Salvation Army Officer in the US Central Territory. The purpose of the survey, according to an email from the “Territorial Racial Diversity and Inclusion Secretary,” was “to better understand perception of institutional racial bias within The Salvation Army.” The accompanying email stated that there was no “preconceived idea” with regard to whether or not racism existed in The Salvation Army, and told recipients that there were no wrong answers.
I sat down and went through the questions.
First, Questions #1, #2, and #3 asked me for my race, age, and gender. I could not skip these questions. Already, I felt uncomfortable being required to list my personal attributes. If I was an officer, I would be wondering: how could this information be used against me in the future? (They did promise anonymity in this survey.)
The survey then asks Salvationists if they agree with the following definition of racism: “Institutional racism refers to organizational or system processes, behaviors, policies, or procedures, which produce negative outcomes for nonwhites relative to those for whites.” The remaining questions in the survey are dependent upon agreeing to this definition of racism. For any Officer or Soldier who disagrees with this framing, there is no way to express any disagreement or nuance apart from plainly saying that racism does not exist.
Question #6 goes on to ask the survey taker whether they believe there is any institutional bias or racism in The Salvation Army. Question #7 says: “If you answered no to question #6, do you think others in The Salvation Army think there are racial tensions or institutional racism?” The purpose of these questions, I started to feel, was to force the survey taker to admit that The Salvation Army is institutionally racist according to their definition of racism. There is no room for any Officer to elaborate on how they disagree with the definitions, framing, or worldview informing the questions.
The final question asks: “What is the best way to address Racism in The Salvation Army?” The answer options are: “individual reconciliation,” “group reconciliation,” “addressing structures and practices that cause racism,” “all of the above,” or “other.” Note that there is no option for the survey taker to simply say that racism is not a problem in The Salvation Army. The survey (which according to the email, was “intended to go to all the officers within your division, employees, and soldiers” for the Central Territory) simply assumes that racism is present in the organization.
Going through the survey, it became apparent that the survey was attempting to lead me to making only one conclusion about The Salvation Army – that it harbored problematic racism.
This belief is one of the core tenets of critical race theory. Critical race theorists teach that racism is ubiquitous in all aspects of American life. They also teach that it works systemically; that is, by being ingrained in the systems and institutions that operate in society. Their primary evidence of the system being racist is the reality that individuals from different demographics have different life outcomes on average, without taking into account any variables that might impact said life outcomes apart from the color of their skin. All of these concepts are reflected in The Salvation Army’s survey.
Any officer who believes in individualism, colorblindness, and meritocracy will be unable to answer any of the survey questions in good faith. Any officer who believes that The Salvation Army is not a racist organization would not be able to answer these questions in good faith either. Many (if not most) Americans believe that racism is primarily an issue of individuals who harbor feelings of hate against those of other races, not a society-wide conspiracy as alleged by antiracist activists. This survey totally excludes the colorblind perspective from the conversation and forces Officers and other Salvationists into a critical race theory-informed box.