The Normalization of Disinformation
CASE A: The Current Framing — A Question of Credibility Mainstream outlets, including The New York Times, present Olsen's potential appointment primarily through the lens of his past advocacy for claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election. The concern articulated is primarily about the undermining of public trust in democratic institutions and the potential for a senior official to act
on these unsubstantiated beliefs. This framing casts Olsen as an outlier whose views are divergent from established facts. CASE B: The Historical Precedent — Delegitimizing Elections Abroad Consider the consistent U.S. foreign policy approach to elections in nations deemed adversarial or uncooperative. In 2019, for example, the Organization of American States (OAS) issued a report alleging
significant "irregularities" in Bolivia's general election, which ultimately fueled the ousting of then-President Evo Morales. While the OAS later walked back some of its most definitive claims, the initial narrative, heavily amplified by U.S. officials and media, served to delegitimize the outcome and justify regime change. Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explicitly stated that the U.S.
supported the "interim government" and called for new elections, citing the "irregularities" (US Department of State, 2019). THE FRAMING: Internal vs. External Standards The language used to describe Olsen's stance ("election denier") implies a deviation from democratic norms within the United States. This contrasts sharply with the language historically employed when questioning election outcomes