废话和谎言?英国和西班牙的政治领导人如何加剧了我们的信息混乱

IF 1.7 3区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Javnost-The Public Pub Date : 2023-11-02 DOI:10.1080/13183222.2023.2244824
Darren Lilleker, Marta Pérez-Escolar
{"title":"废话和谎言?英国和西班牙的政治领导人如何加剧了我们的信息混乱","authors":"Darren Lilleker, Marta Pérez-Escolar","doi":"10.1080/13183222.2023.2244824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Within what is known as the post-truth era, politicians strategically trade in alternative interpretations of data, make bold populist claims and on occasions be completely dishonest for party political gains. Such practices coincide with ever-declining trust in politicians and the democratic system, a phenomenon common to both Spain and the UK. We enquire whether public mistrust is deserved exploring the extent party leaders employ misinformation as part of their strategic communication. The paper analyses falsehoods made by political leaders as determined by major fact-checking sites EFE Verifica and Newtral in Spain, and the UK’s BBC Reality Check and Full Fact. We categorise falsehoods as misinformation, alternative facts, bullshit or lies. Results show right-wing parties most responsible for all forms of falsehoods, or they are most likely to face analysis from factcheckers. Falsehoods are used by governments defending their policies, but also by oppositions to attack the government; especially alternative facts. The overwhelming majority of policy attacks based on false information are from opposition parties, particularly Spanish parties on the right. The flagrant use of bullshit and lies, while simultaneously calling out their more mainstream opponents for similar practices, poisons the notion of democratic pluralism and makes low public trust seem perfectly justified.","PeriodicalId":46298,"journal":{"name":"Javnost-The Public","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bullshit and Lies? How British and Spanish Political Leaders Add to Our Information Disorder\",\"authors\":\"Darren Lilleker, Marta Pérez-Escolar\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13183222.2023.2244824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Within what is known as the post-truth era, politicians strategically trade in alternative interpretations of data, make bold populist claims and on occasions be completely dishonest for party political gains. Such practices coincide with ever-declining trust in politicians and the democratic system, a phenomenon common to both Spain and the UK. We enquire whether public mistrust is deserved exploring the extent party leaders employ misinformation as part of their strategic communication. The paper analyses falsehoods made by political leaders as determined by major fact-checking sites EFE Verifica and Newtral in Spain, and the UK’s BBC Reality Check and Full Fact. We categorise falsehoods as misinformation, alternative facts, bullshit or lies. Results show right-wing parties most responsible for all forms of falsehoods, or they are most likely to face analysis from factcheckers. Falsehoods are used by governments defending their policies, but also by oppositions to attack the government; especially alternative facts. The overwhelming majority of policy attacks based on false information are from opposition parties, particularly Spanish parties on the right. The flagrant use of bullshit and lies, while simultaneously calling out their more mainstream opponents for similar practices, poisons the notion of democratic pluralism and makes low public trust seem perfectly justified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Javnost-The Public\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2244824\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Javnost-The Public","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2244824","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在所谓的后真相时代,政客们战略性地交换对数据的不同解释,大胆地提出民粹主义主张,有时为了政党的政治利益而完全不诚实。与此同时,人们对政客和民主制度的信任度也在不断下降,这是西班牙和英国的共同现象。我们询问公众的不信任是否值得探索政党领导人将错误信息作为其战略沟通的一部分的程度。这篇论文分析了西班牙主要的事实核查网站EFE Verifica和Newtral以及英国的BBC Reality Check和Full Fact所确定的政治领导人的谎言。我们将谎言分为错误信息、另类事实、胡扯或谎言。结果显示,右翼政党对各种形式的谎言负有最大责任,或者他们最有可能面临事实核查人员的分析。谎言被政府用来捍卫他们的政策,但也被反对派用来攻击政府;尤其是另类事实。绝大多数基于虚假信息的政策攻击来自反对党,尤其是西班牙右翼政党。公然使用废话和谎言,同时呼吁他们更主流的对手采取类似的做法,这毒害了民主多元化的概念,并使公众的低信任度看起来完全合理。
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
Bullshit and Lies? How British and Spanish Political Leaders Add to Our Information Disorder
Within what is known as the post-truth era, politicians strategically trade in alternative interpretations of data, make bold populist claims and on occasions be completely dishonest for party political gains. Such practices coincide with ever-declining trust in politicians and the democratic system, a phenomenon common to both Spain and the UK. We enquire whether public mistrust is deserved exploring the extent party leaders employ misinformation as part of their strategic communication. The paper analyses falsehoods made by political leaders as determined by major fact-checking sites EFE Verifica and Newtral in Spain, and the UK’s BBC Reality Check and Full Fact. We categorise falsehoods as misinformation, alternative facts, bullshit or lies. Results show right-wing parties most responsible for all forms of falsehoods, or they are most likely to face analysis from factcheckers. Falsehoods are used by governments defending their policies, but also by oppositions to attack the government; especially alternative facts. The overwhelming majority of policy attacks based on false information are from opposition parties, particularly Spanish parties on the right. The flagrant use of bullshit and lies, while simultaneously calling out their more mainstream opponents for similar practices, poisons the notion of democratic pluralism and makes low public trust seem perfectly justified.
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
Javnost-The Public
Javnost-The Public COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: Javnost - The Public, an interdisciplinary peer-reviewed social and cultural science journal published by the European Institute for Communication and Culture in association with the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana, addresses problems of the public sphere on international and interdisciplinary levels. It encourages the development of theory and research, and helps understand differences between cultures. Contributors confront problems of the public, public communication, public opinion, public discourse, publicness, publicity, and public life from a variety of disciplinary and theoretical perspectives.
期刊最新文献
Not Forgetting Black Lives Matter: Memory, Protest and Counterpublics Public Service Media in Northern Ireland: Prominence and Vulnerability in a Small Media System Counterpublics and Structural Change in Media and Politics: A Theoretical Framework on Transformations within a Long-Term Historical Perspective Anti-Systemic Counterpublics: Rethinking the Counterpublic Sphere Far Right > Digital Rights: The Precarity of Free Expression, Internet Access, Net Neutrality and Data Privacy in Bolsonaro’s Brazil
×
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