Media Manipulation in the 21st Century. Fact-Checking and ‘Not-Tags’ in the Current Conjuncture

Travail de Recherche , 2021 , 9 Pages , Note: A

Médias / Communication - L'économie des médias, Management des médias

While reviewing the literature pertaining to the infamous fake news, many would out of necessity make a distinction between the domineering work concerned with the kind of campaigning and the apparent computational propaganda online, compounded by the current offshoots for its consumers, plus, some few findings, usually journalistic found on the web and in social media. Nonetheless, while much focus has been on the influence of Russia on the campaigning in the United States, and the absence or presence thereof during elections in France, Germany, Sweden, Dutch and elsewhere, the fact remains that the influence of campaigning within political spaces online, together with the question of manipulation or persuasion is irrefutable.

Indeed, journalism is currently engulfed in a state of substantial flux, with novel digital platforms unleashing innovative journalistic practices, which allow new communication forms and vast global reach. However, hoaxes and disinformation, commonly referred to as ‘fake news’ are on a high acceleration, subsequently influencing the way people interpret daily developments and their way of life as a whole.

Driven by foreign elements, citizen journalism, along with the proliferation of cable news and talk radio, myriad information systems have now become more contentious and polarized, not to mention that there has been a swift decline on public trust as regards traditional journalism. Correspondingly, this conception may be seen as the cradle for the term ‘post-truth,’ which was defined in 2016 as relating to or referring to the circumstances within which objective facts are usually less influential when it comes to shaping public opinion compared to appeals to personal belief and emotion(s).

In particular, the 2016 Brexit vote in the UK, and the tumultuous US presidential election depicted the way the digital era has influenced news along with cultural narratives. Indeed, the notion of post-truth, especially fact-checking, risks turning into more than just a catchphrase, taking into account that the epistemic, political, social and cultural issues at hand behind the current controversy on post-truth are so diverse, differentiated and disheveled. In fact, though fact-checkers core intent is to get closer to the truth, their biases may shroud the real truth they are looking for; a phenomenon that was evinced in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaigns and election.

While reviewing the literature pertaining the infamous fake news, many would out of necessity make a distinction between the domineering work concerned with the art of campaigning and the apparent computational propaganda online, compounded by the current offshoots for its consumers, plus, some few findings, usually journalistic found on the web and in social media. Nonetheless, while much focus has been on the influence of Russia on the campaigning in the United States, and the absence or presence thereof during elections in France, Germany, Sweden, Dutch and elsewhere, the fact remains that influence campaigning within political spaces online, together with the question of manipulation or persuasion is irrefutable (Yerlikaya & Toker, 2020). Indeed, journalism is currently engulfed in a state of substantial flux, with novel digital platforms unleashing innovative journalistic practices, which allow new communication forms and vast global reach. However, hoaxes and disinformation, commonly referred as ‘fake news’ are on a high acceleration, subsequently influencing the way people interpret daily developments and their way of life as a whole (Corner, 2017).

Driven by foreign elements, citizen journalism, along with the proliferation of cable news and talk radio, myriad information systems have now become more contentious and polarized, not to mention that there has been a swift decline on public trust as regards traditional journalism. Correspondingly, this conception may be seen as the cradle for the term ‘post-truth,’ which was defined in 2016 as relating to or referring to the circumstances within which objective facts are usually less influential when it comes to shaping public opinion compared to appeals to personal belief and emotion(s) (Overell & Nicholls, 2019). In particular, the 2016 Brexit vote in the UK, and the tumultuous US presidential election depicted the way the digital era has influenced news along with cultural narratives. Indeed, the notion of post-truth, especially fact-checking, risks turning into more than just a catchphrase, taking into account that the epistemic, political, social and cultural issues at hand behind the current controversy on post-truth are so diverse, differentiated and disheveled (Kyza & Varda, 2019). In fact, though fact-checkers core intent is to get closer to the truth, their biases may shroud the real truth they are looking for; a phenomenon that was evinced in the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaigns and election.

Ideally, politicians and commentators have grown so prone to deception and outright lying that major news organizations such as the Associated Press, CNN, BBC and Fox News, as well as the Washington Post now assign journalists and fact-checkers to verify assertions made during stump speeches and press briefings. The desire to expose lies and deceptive statements that have been taken out of context is admirable (Yerlikaya & Toker, 2020). When it comes to real-world complications, however, the problem is that people often see different things when they gaze at the same occurrence, a fact that psychologists have consistently verified. In practical sense, some fake news publications have emphasized more on private fact-checking, with the majority of them covering the United States and Europe. Several authors have looked into the institutional components of fact-checking as well as the professional ethics of fact-checkers. The advent of fact-checking has been fueled by the fall of journalism, technological advances and change, public disempowerment, societal crises, and reform movements (Michailidou & Trenz, 2021). Non-journalistic fact-checkers have likewise evolved from the periphery of the news industry to play a larger role as data advocates and activists in this context.

Fact-checkers usually try to characterize the risk of disinformation and position themselves as trustworthy and reliable risk mitigators. Journalists, on the other hand, have argued for clear distinctions between fact-checking and activism, stressing that fact-checking should be unbiased (Yerlikaya & Toker, 2020). Other scholars have also paid attention to the disputed epistemology of fact-checking, as well as the ambiguous institutional realities within a less clear real or factual environment, with others affirming that fact-checking organizations' missions, goals, and processes are commonly misunderstood, which might undermine the transparency of their work (Corner, 2017). However, broad and basic critique of fact-checkers' nave political epistemology, which was founded on the implicit assumption that facts were unambiguous or clear and not subject to interpretation, has been largely dismissed.

The impact of various fact-checking settings and approaches have received a significant deal of scholarly attention. According to Damasceno & Patrício (2020), journalistic fact checks can lessen misperceptions but have little impact on candidate appraisals or voting decisions. Furthermore, the ability to correct political misinformation with fact-checking appears to be highly dependent on the audience's prior conceptions, ideologies, and knowledge, as well as social connections and emotional attachment between fact-checkers and rumor spreaders (Michailidou & Trenz, 2021). Ample evidence suggests that aggregated fact checks have a greater impact on opinions of politicians than individual fact checks when looking at persuasiveness characteristics.

Nonetheless, disinformation and propaganda are now routinely employed on social media platforms, which have significant influence over political processes. The term "computational propaganda" was used to describe the act of manipulating the public in a desired direction through the use of computer technologies (Corner, 2017). The use of social media platforms for propaganda and manipulation by both state and non-state actors poses a significant threat to democracy. The first stage of social network-based manipulation is the creation of a phony website that looks and feels similar to mainstream media websites in terms of graphics and design (Calderon, 2020). In the second phase, political bots and trawl accounts disseminate the website's manipulative and false information, allowing them to reach a larger audience (Damasceno & Patrício, 2020). In the final stage, the content created for manipulation is placed on the agendas of online social networks and mainstream media, allowing it to be discussed and expanding the breadth of manipulation by drawing big crowds' attention.

During election seasons, it has become all too typical to propagate bogus news and sway voters through phony accounts. False information is also utilized to distort the personal details of election candidates and to assassinate leaders' reputations (Overell & Nicholls, 2019). Conducting voter profile studies is another way to manipulate voters by distributing customized content that will emotionally trigger them and influence their political judgments. It's now feasible to tailor search results to the individual thanks to improvements in artificial intelligence technologies (Michailidou & Trenz, 2021). Following the recognition of the extent to which character analysis can impact voter behavior, all actors seeking political influence have increased their efforts to manipulate voting behavior in this manner.

For instance, Electoral fraud charges developed following Trump's victory over Clinton in the 2016 US presidential election. Following that, the Cambridge Analytica scandal erupted, demonstrating the extent to which social media can be used to manipulate people (Calderon, 2020). Following this occurrence, Facebook discovered that the advertising that were published in the United States between 2015 and 2017 were created by a Russian internet research agency, demonstrating the gravity of the charges (Corner, 2017). Various reports suggest that Russia exploited social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram to manipulate the presidential election process and results, and that phony accounts were used to affect the election results.

The charges that Russia rigged the 2016 presidential election by employing state-backed news outlets and other third parties, as well as paying for social media troll accounts, are still being contested in the public discourse. The fact that the United States' judiciary has begun inquiries into some of the individuals and institutions accused of electoral meddling demonstrates the gravity of the situation (Damasceno & Patrício, 2020). The fact that suspected Russian-origin manipulations have become increasingly common in recent years, as well as the fact that several European Union (EU) member states have imposed restrictions on Russian news media, demonstrates the seriousness of the issue (Calderon, 2020). The methods in which conspiracy theories that arose in the public arena 3 months prior to the election, fake news, and incorrect information are effective in social networks, according to a study explaining how fake news skyrocketed during the US presidential election in 2016 (Overell & Nicholls, 2019). So much so that in the three months leading up to the election, the rhetoric directed at Obama in order to damage Democratic Party candidates, which targeted the country's principles and consisted of stories about immigration, reached a grand number of people on Facebook.

[...]

• Université: University of Nairobi
• Cours: Business Management
• Note: A
• Auteur: Mutinda Jackson (Auteur)
• Année de publication: 2021
• Pages: 9
• N° de catalogue: V1275277
• ISBN (PDF): 9783346765413
• Langue: anglais
• mots-clé: media, manipulation, century, fact-checking, current, conjuncture