真理的幻影

María Díez-Garrido, Dafne Calvo, Lorena Cano-Orón
{"title":"真理的幻影","authors":"María Díez-Garrido, Dafne Calvo, Lorena Cano-Orón","doi":"10.4018/978-1-7998-8057-8.ch008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fact-checkers have grown recently, facing the decline of journalism and the acceleration of disinformation flows on the internet. Due to the recent scholarly attention to these journalistic outlets, some authors have pointed to diverse critics such as the political bias and the low impact of fact-checking initiatives. In line with the research approaching the weaponization of disinformation in politics, this chapter reflects on the instrumentalization of verifying practices as a fact to consider when studying fact-checking. The investigation applies a combined methodology to compare Bendita and Maldita initiatives. While the latter is internationally recognized as an entity of fact-checking, the second one arises as an imitation of it and lacks recognition and scholarly attention. Conclusions suggest that fact-checking implies more complex activities than refuting specific facts, while alt-right positions can instrumentalize fact-checking for political objectives. The authors call for the importance of definitions that exclude this type of misuse of verification.","PeriodicalId":121894,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Politics, Communication, and the Impact on Democracy","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Mirage of Truth\",\"authors\":\"María Díez-Garrido, Dafne Calvo, Lorena Cano-Orón\",\"doi\":\"10.4018/978-1-7998-8057-8.ch008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Fact-checkers have grown recently, facing the decline of journalism and the acceleration of disinformation flows on the internet. Due to the recent scholarly attention to these journalistic outlets, some authors have pointed to diverse critics such as the political bias and the low impact of fact-checking initiatives. In line with the research approaching the weaponization of disinformation in politics, this chapter reflects on the instrumentalization of verifying practices as a fact to consider when studying fact-checking. The investigation applies a combined methodology to compare Bendita and Maldita initiatives. While the latter is internationally recognized as an entity of fact-checking, the second one arises as an imitation of it and lacks recognition and scholarly attention. Conclusions suggest that fact-checking implies more complex activities than refuting specific facts, while alt-right positions can instrumentalize fact-checking for political objectives. The authors call for the importance of definitions that exclude this type of misuse of verification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":121894,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Politics, Communication, and the Impact on Democracy\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Politics, Communication, and the Impact on Democracy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8057-8.ch008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Politics, Communication, and the Impact on Democracy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8057-8.ch008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

面对新闻业的衰落和互联网上虚假信息的加速流动,事实核查人员最近有所增加。由于最近学术界对这些新闻媒体的关注,一些作者指出了各种各样的批评,如政治偏见和事实核查举措的低影响。根据对政治中虚假信息武器化的研究,本章反思了验证实践的工具化作为研究事实核查时需要考虑的事实。该调查采用了一种综合方法来比较本迪塔和马尔代夫的举措。后者是国际公认的事实核查实体,而后者则是对后者的模仿,缺乏认可和学术关注。结论表明,事实核查意味着比反驳具体事实更复杂的活动,而另类右翼的立场可以将事实核查工具化,以实现政治目标。作者呼吁制定排除这类误用核查的定义的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Mirage of Truth
Fact-checkers have grown recently, facing the decline of journalism and the acceleration of disinformation flows on the internet. Due to the recent scholarly attention to these journalistic outlets, some authors have pointed to diverse critics such as the political bias and the low impact of fact-checking initiatives. In line with the research approaching the weaponization of disinformation in politics, this chapter reflects on the instrumentalization of verifying practices as a fact to consider when studying fact-checking. The investigation applies a combined methodology to compare Bendita and Maldita initiatives. While the latter is internationally recognized as an entity of fact-checking, the second one arises as an imitation of it and lacks recognition and scholarly attention. Conclusions suggest that fact-checking implies more complex activities than refuting specific facts, while alt-right positions can instrumentalize fact-checking for political objectives. The authors call for the importance of definitions that exclude this type of misuse of verification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Placing Portuguese Right-Wing Populism Into Context Citizens' Political Discourses on Climate Change and Vaccines Will Live Streaming Platforms and Influencers Consolidate or Disrupt Democracy? Citizens, Polarization, and the Pandemic in the Italian Hybrid News Media System Populism, Its Prevalence, and Its Negative Influence on Democratic Institutions
×
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