Who is who in fact-checked conspiracy theories? Disseminators, sources, and the struggle for authority in polarized environments

Francisco Paulo Jamil Marques, Paulo Ferracioli, Naiza Comel, Andressa Butture Kniess
{"title":"Who is who in fact-checked conspiracy theories? Disseminators, sources, and the struggle for authority in polarized environments","authors":"Francisco Paulo Jamil Marques, Paulo Ferracioli, Naiza Comel, Andressa Butture Kniess","doi":"10.1177/14648849231165579","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the growing scholarship concerning mis- and disinformation, research has yet to assess how journalism tackles conspiracy theories in settings where news organizations and media professionals have their authority questioned. Against this background, our article poses two research questions: RQ1) Who are the actors mainstream fact-checkers cover when addressing conspiracy theories? RQ2) To what extent does the focus on such actors delegitimize those who challenge news organizations or compete with them for the audience? Using content analysis as our key methodological strategy, we consider 197 fact-checks published between 2018 and 2021 by the Projeto Comprova, a Brazilian initiative currently comprising professionals from 41 media organizations. We found that the most discussed topics were those mobilizing polarized groups, namely, the Covid-19 pandemic and election fraud allegations. The then-President Bolsonaro and his supporters were often cited as disseminators of such plots. In turn, Facebook is pointed out as a thriving environment for the circulation of conspiratorial narratives. The results also reveal the prominence of mainstream news outlets as sources to ground the “factual” information sustained in the fact-checks. More interestingly, our data suggest that fact-checkers have favored specific news values when addressing conspiracy theories. To strengthen our investigation, we use interviews with four professionals contributing to the Comprova to illustrate how the project has brought together rival companies interested in delegitimizing “alternative” sources of information.","PeriodicalId":74027,"journal":{"name":"Journalism (London, England)","volume":"87 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journalism (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231165579","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Despite the growing scholarship concerning mis- and disinformation, research has yet to assess how journalism tackles conspiracy theories in settings where news organizations and media professionals have their authority questioned. Against this background, our article poses two research questions: RQ1) Who are the actors mainstream fact-checkers cover when addressing conspiracy theories? RQ2) To what extent does the focus on such actors delegitimize those who challenge news organizations or compete with them for the audience? Using content analysis as our key methodological strategy, we consider 197 fact-checks published between 2018 and 2021 by the Projeto Comprova, a Brazilian initiative currently comprising professionals from 41 media organizations. We found that the most discussed topics were those mobilizing polarized groups, namely, the Covid-19 pandemic and election fraud allegations. The then-President Bolsonaro and his supporters were often cited as disseminators of such plots. In turn, Facebook is pointed out as a thriving environment for the circulation of conspiratorial narratives. The results also reveal the prominence of mainstream news outlets as sources to ground the “factual” information sustained in the fact-checks. More interestingly, our data suggest that fact-checkers have favored specific news values when addressing conspiracy theories. To strengthen our investigation, we use interviews with four professionals contributing to the Comprova to illustrate how the project has brought together rival companies interested in delegitimizing “alternative” sources of information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谁是经过事实核查的阴谋论中的谁?在两极分化的环境中,传播者、消息来源和对权威的争夺
尽管关于错误和虚假信息的学术研究越来越多,但研究尚未评估新闻机构和媒体专业人员的权威受到质疑的情况下,新闻业如何应对阴谋论。在这种背景下,我们的文章提出了两个研究问题:RQ1)在处理阴谋论时,主流事实核查者所涵盖的角色是谁?RQ2)对这些行为者的关注在多大程度上使那些挑战新闻机构或与新闻机构争夺观众的人失去了合法性?将内容分析作为我们的主要方法策略,我们考虑了2018年至2021年期间由project Comprova发布的197项事实核查。project Comprova是巴西的一项倡议,目前由来自41家媒体组织的专业人员组成。我们发现,讨论最多的话题是动员两极分化群体的话题,即新冠疫情和选举舞弊指控。当时的总统博尔索纳罗及其支持者经常被认为是这种阴谋的传播者。反过来,Facebook被指出是阴谋论叙事传播的繁荣环境。研究结果还揭示了主流新闻媒体作为事实核查中所支持的“事实”信息来源的重要性。更有趣的是,我们的数据表明,事实核查员在处理阴谋论时更倾向于特定的新闻价值观。为了加强我们的调查,我们采访了四位为Comprova做出贡献的专业人士,以说明该项目如何将对非法“替代”信息来源感兴趣的竞争公司聚集在一起。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Shifting the protest paradigm? Legitimizing and humanizing protest coverage lead to more positive attitudes toward protest, mixed results on news credibility “Remember that?” A temporal perspective on how audiences make sense of the news China’s metaphorically “othered” image in The New York Times (1949-2020) Prehistory of journalism studies: Discovering the Brazilian tradition The digital turn from a newsroom perspective – How German journalists from different generations reflect on the digitalization of journalism
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1