Edson C. Tandoc Jr., A. Duffy, S. M. Jones-Jang, Winnie Goh Wen Pin
This study examines the impact of fake news discourse on perceptions of news media credibility. If participants are told they have been exposed to fake news, does this lead them to trust information institutions less, including the news media? Study 1 (n = 188) found that news media credibility decreased when participants were told they saw fake news, while news credibility did not change when participants were told they saw real news. Study 2 (n = 400) found that those who saw fake news – and were told they saw a fake news post – decreased their trust in the news media while those who saw fake news and were not debriefed did not change their perceptions of the news media. This shows that the social impact of fake news is not limited to its direct consequences of misinforming individuals, but also includes the potentially adverse effects of discussing fake news.
{"title":"Poisoning the information well?","authors":"Edson C. Tandoc Jr., A. Duffy, S. M. Jones-Jang, Winnie Goh Wen Pin","doi":"10.1075/JLP.21029.TAN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JLP.21029.TAN","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study examines the impact of fake news discourse on perceptions of news media credibility. If participants\u0000 are told they have been exposed to fake news, does this lead them to trust information institutions less, including the news\u0000 media? Study 1 (n = 188) found that news media credibility decreased when participants were told they saw fake\u0000 news, while news credibility did not change when participants were told they saw real news. Study 2 (n = 400)\u0000 found that those who saw fake news – and were told they saw a fake news post – decreased their trust in the news media while those\u0000 who saw fake news and were not debriefed did not change their perceptions of the news media. This shows that the social impact of\u0000 fake news is not limited to its direct consequences of misinforming individuals, but also includes the potentially adverse effects\u0000 of discussing fake news.","PeriodicalId":167182,"journal":{"name":"Discourses of Fake News","volume":"39 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125132819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article explores the strategic use of ‘fake news’ discourses in non-democratic contexts using a mixed-methods approach grounded in social network analysis and discourse theory. In contexts such as Russia and Iran, where the opposition generally does not have unrestricted access to the political public sphere, social media platforms serve to influence discourses. Given the prevalence of fake news discourses, previous studies have already focused extensively on the political elite and their use of this discourse within Western or Anglo-American contexts, and on the typologies of ‘fake news’. Our findings address this research gap and suggest that ordinary users in non-Western and non-democratic settings do not differentiate between ‘fake news’ types. Rather, they employ the discourse as a means to strategically delegitimise and discredit their opponents.
{"title":"‘Fake news’ discourses","authors":"Ehsan Dehghan, S. Glazunova","doi":"10.1075/JLP.21032.DEH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JLP.21032.DEH","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article explores the strategic use of ‘fake news’ discourses in non-democratic contexts using a mixed-methods\u0000 approach grounded in social network analysis and discourse theory. In contexts such as Russia and Iran, where the opposition\u0000 generally does not have unrestricted access to the political public sphere, social media platforms serve to influence discourses.\u0000 Given the prevalence of fake news discourses, previous studies have already focused extensively on the political elite and their\u0000 use of this discourse within Western or Anglo-American contexts, and on the typologies of ‘fake news’. Our findings address this\u0000 research gap and suggest that ordinary users in non-Western and non-democratic settings do not differentiate between ‘fake news’\u0000 types. Rather, they employ the discourse as a means to strategically delegitimise and discredit their opponents.","PeriodicalId":167182,"journal":{"name":"Discourses of Fake News","volume":"44 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129189961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article longitudinally analyses how Australian politicians engage with, and attack, journalists and the media more generally on Twitter from 2011–2018. The article finds that attacks on journalists have increased significantly since 2016 when Trump came to power, but this is largely the preserve of populist and far-right politicians. These politicians rarely call the media fake, instead alleging bias or questioning the veracity or standards of reporting and production. Many politicians have a functional relationship with the media, rarely criticising the media. Attacks are largely focused on the national public service broadcaster, the ABC, with limited attacks on commercial media.
{"title":"Beyond ‘fake news’?","authors":"S. Wright","doi":"10.1075/JLP.21027.WRI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JLP.21027.WRI","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article longitudinally analyses how Australian politicians engage with, and attack, journalists and the media more\u0000 generally on Twitter from 2011–2018. The article finds that attacks on journalists have increased significantly since 2016 when Trump came\u0000 to power, but this is largely the preserve of populist and far-right politicians. These politicians rarely call the media fake, instead\u0000 alleging bias or questioning the veracity or standards of reporting and production. Many politicians have a functional relationship with the\u0000 media, rarely criticising the media. Attacks are largely focused on the national public service broadcaster, the ABC, with limited attacks\u0000 on commercial media.","PeriodicalId":167182,"journal":{"name":"Discourses of Fake News","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128078296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the 2016 US federal election, political actors have weaponized online fake news as a means of gaining electoral advantage (Egelhofer and Lecheler 2019). To advance understandings of the actors and methods involved in perpetuating fake news, this article focuses on an Australian story that circulated on and offline through different discourses during the 2019 federal election. We use content analyses of 100,000 media articles and eight million Facebook posts to trace false claims that the centre-left Labor party would introduce an inheritance tax dubbed a ‘death tax’ if it won office. To understand this evolution of ‘death tax’ discourse on and offline – and its weaponization by various actors – we draw from existing theorems of agenda setting, backfire effects, and propose our own recursion theory.
{"title":"Recursion theory and the ‘death tax’","authors":"A. Carson, Andrew Gibbons, J. Phillips","doi":"10.1075/JLP.21030.CAR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JLP.21030.CAR","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Since the 2016 US federal election, political actors have weaponized online fake news as a means of gaining\u0000 electoral advantage (Egelhofer and Lecheler 2019). To advance understandings of the actors and methods involved in perpetuating fake news,\u0000 this article focuses on an Australian story that circulated on and offline through different discourses during the 2019 federal election.\u0000 We use content analyses of 100,000 media articles and eight million Facebook posts to trace false claims that the centre-left Labor party\u0000 would introduce an inheritance tax dubbed a ‘death tax’ if it won office. To understand this evolution of ‘death tax’ discourse on and\u0000 offline – and its weaponization by various actors – we draw from existing theorems of agenda setting, backfire effects, and propose our\u0000 own recursion theory.","PeriodicalId":167182,"journal":{"name":"Discourses of Fake News","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130608541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent years, the term ‘fake news’ has gained considerable traction in scholarly and public discourse. While fake news is increasingly attributed to declining audience trust, we know little about how publics are making sense of the concept. To address this, I discuss findings arising from interviews with 24 Western Australian media consumers who offered their perspectives on Australian news coverage of asylum seekers. Combining Critical Discourse methods with Rhetorical Analysis, findings highlight how participants evaluated misinformation and disinformation about asylum seekers and in particular, how some adopted a discourse of ‘fake news’ to delegitimise perspectives that oppose their own stance. Discussed alongside Egelhofer and Lecheler’s (2019) theoretical framework of the fake news ‘label’, I argue that by understanding how audiences discussed fake news before the concept rose to prominence in 2016, scholars can meaningfully examine discursive patterns within social constructions of fake news across numerous contemporary and historical contexts.
{"title":"Audience constructions of fake news in Australian media representations of asylum seekers","authors":"Ashleigh L. Haw","doi":"10.1075/JLP.21028.HAW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JLP.21028.HAW","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In recent years, the term ‘fake news’ has gained considerable traction in scholarly and public discourse. While fake news\u0000 is increasingly attributed to declining audience trust, we know little about how publics are making sense of the concept. To address this, I\u0000 discuss findings arising from interviews with 24 Western Australian media consumers who offered their perspectives on Australian news\u0000 coverage of asylum seekers. Combining Critical Discourse methods with Rhetorical Analysis, findings highlight how participants evaluated\u0000 misinformation and disinformation about asylum seekers and in particular, how some adopted a discourse of ‘fake news’ to delegitimise\u0000 perspectives that oppose their own stance. Discussed alongside Egelhofer and Lecheler’s (2019)\u0000 theoretical framework of the fake news ‘label’, I argue that by understanding how audiences discussed fake news before the concept rose to\u0000 prominence in 2016, scholars can meaningfully examine discursive patterns within social constructions of fake news across numerous\u0000 contemporary and historical contexts.","PeriodicalId":167182,"journal":{"name":"Discourses of Fake News","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133218393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Discourses of fake news","authors":"S. Wright","doi":"10.1075/JLP.21058.WRI","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JLP.21058.WRI","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":167182,"journal":{"name":"Discourses of Fake News","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126054478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
U.S. journalism during the Trump era has experienced numerous legitimacy attacks by the leading political figure. Building on the concepts of institutional legitimacy and intentional trust, this study analyzes legitimation narratives in projections of journalism’s future, using the Harvard University’s NiemanLab Predictions of Journalism from 2017 to 2021. Projectory narratives are meaningful constructions of a field’s future and provide guidance for its actors. The qualitative analysis of a Trump-related subset of predictions (ca. n = 130) convey (1) confrontational narratives of threat, self-reproach, and epistemological authority loss. Confrontational narratives serve to secure consent for suggested transparency and audience relationship building solutions. These (2) solution narratives represent trustification strategies. Lastly, (3) survival narratives aim at regaining authority and agency through legacy mythopoesis and the construction of a cautiously optimistic post-Trump outlook for journalism. Hence, the analysis of projectory narratives reveals how an organizational field collectively prepares for change to regain legitimacy.
在特朗普时代，美国新闻业经历了来自这位主要政治人物的多次合法性攻击。本研究以制度合法性和故意信任的概念为基础，利用哈佛大学尼曼实验室2017年至2021年的新闻业预测，分析了新闻业未来预测中的合法性叙事。投射叙事是对一个领域未来的有意义的建构，并为其参与者提供指导。对特朗普相关预测子集的定性分析(ca. n = 130)传达了(1)威胁、自责和认知论权威丧失的对抗性叙述。对抗性叙述有助于确保建议的透明度和受众关系建立解决方案的同意。这些(2)解决方案叙述代表了信任策略。最后，(3)生存叙事旨在通过遗产神话和构建谨慎乐观的后特朗普新闻前景来重新获得权威和代理。因此，对投射叙事的分析揭示了一个组织领域如何集体为变革做准备，以重新获得合法性。
{"title":"Fighting an indestructible monster","authors":"Juliane A. Lischka","doi":"10.1075/JLP.21031.LIS","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JLP.21031.LIS","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000U.S. journalism during the Trump era has experienced numerous legitimacy attacks by the leading political figure. Building on the concepts of institutional legitimacy and intentional trust, this study analyzes legitimation narratives in projections of journalism’s future, using the Harvard University’s NiemanLab Predictions of Journalism from 2017 to 2021. Projectory narratives are meaningful constructions of a field’s future and provide guidance for its actors. The qualitative analysis of a Trump-related subset of predictions (ca. n = 130) convey (1) confrontational narratives of threat, self-reproach, and epistemological authority loss. Confrontational narratives serve to secure consent for suggested transparency and audience relationship building solutions. These (2) solution narratives represent trustification strategies. Lastly, (3) survival narratives aim at regaining authority and agency through legacy mythopoesis and the construction of a cautiously optimistic post-Trump outlook for journalism. Hence, the analysis of projectory narratives reveals how an organizational field collectively prepares for change to regain legitimacy.","PeriodicalId":167182,"journal":{"name":"Discourses of Fake News","volume":"7 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"113976881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：