Post-Truth:
Disinformation and Fake News in the Digital Media Age
By: Nour
Salman, Media & Cultural Studies Researcher – FARAS
Disinformation is by no means a new phenomenon, but with
continuous developments and increased use of social networking sites by various
politicians and spokespersons, is the press prepared to take on fake news in
the digital media war against disinformation? How can the media counter
propaganda-fueled news agencies? Can the press face politicians that use social
media to sway the public? How can the media combat a complete disregard for
facts in the so called post-truth dilemma? The above questions will be analyzed
further to determine what the future of news and the media may look like with
the advent of post-truth and disinformation.
FIRST - What is Disinformation?
Disinformation has long been a resource for governments to
spread propaganda in order to recruit the masses and sway public opinion, most
prominently during the Cold War period where the former USSR and USA applied
disinformation as a core policy. In 1999, David Rothkopf wrote on ‘The
Disinformation Age’ analyzing “volatile global markets, deception,
misrepresentation and outright dishonesty” following the aftermath of the Asian
Financial Crisis.[i]
Whilst Rothkopf’s article highlighted prominent discourse on disinformation and
media limitations, this was certainly not a first-time occurrence. However,
having established that disinformation is not a new phenomenon, it “seems to
have become much more prevalent in recent years.”[ii]
Thus, what is disinformation and how is it applied in the digital media age?
There is an abundance of literature that both describes and
critically examines disinformation. Worth noting, when defining disinformation,
one must be conscious of an important distinction between information,
misinformation and disinformation, which is, as Stahl writes “the question of
truth.”[iii]
Whilst both misinformation and disinformation both entail the absence of truth,
disinformation entails intentional deception.[iv]
James Fetzer of the Department of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota
elaborates on this further stating, “‘misinformation’ can be simply defined as
false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation’ entails the
distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading
information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive
or confuse.”[v] As
such, disinformation is particularly problematic, because the very intention is
to mislead and sway the audience’s perceptions.
As mentioned earlier, disinformation has now become even more
prominent, and with new information technologies constantly developing it is
now much “easier for people to create and disseminate inaccurate and misleading
information.”[vi]
Social Networking Sites (SNSs) such as Facebook and Twitter provide
accessibility for individuals to post various media through the means of
articles, images, tweets and videos via cost-effective technologies. And whilst
the accessibility to information and various media channels via SNSs has a
myriad of positive aspects, it is disconcerting when the use of disinformation
is propagated to mislead users of such sites. Hackers, government officials,
news agencies, amongst others are now disseminating disinformation as a means
to sway the public sphere and have wider geo-political impact when reporting on
crises and global changes.
SECOND – The Weaponization of Information
With Russia’s direct participation in the Syrian Crisis, the
spread of ISIS in the Middle East, Donald Trump winning the latest US Elections,
and global economic uncertainty, instability and increased threats are a constant
in the current global environment. Varying geopolitical changes currently
occurring on the global stage and the advances in cost-effective technologies
allow for the dissemination of information at a faster, less expensive way then
ever before. This creates a space for individuals and agencies to bend and play
with information in a way that could be damaging on a global scale. Considered
as a geopolitical evolution, “both elite and public opinion has proved
ill-prepared about how to react to policy change”, as a result, “state
propaganda agencies step in the breach, making…the ‘weaponization of
information’ a central facet of international conflict.”[vii]
What weaponization of information essentially means is that
both state and non-state actors can play an influential role in changing public
perceptions about a certain crisis, topic and peoples to push forward their
various agendas. Kenneth Weinstein elaborates further, stating the
weaponization of information has become a skill in which state and non-state
actors aggressively “use the tools of a free society, including the media and
social media, to distort reality, and defend the indefensible” in such a
pro-active, creative, and production value-oriented way that is far more
sophisticated in targeting audiences then the Soviet Union was ever able to do.[viii]
This is readily visible through Russia’s propaganda outlets RT and Sputnik,
amongst others, as well as the self-named Islamic State (ISIS) with its
proficient use of social media to spread the terrorist organization’s agenda
and recruit individuals into its folds, and Donald Trump’s use of Twitter to
spout vitriol amongst other agenda-setting propaganda that aided in his
election win.
The common element in the weaponization of information and
the spread of disinformation is the spread of propaganda leading to a
post-truth phenomenon. Fundamentally, “all definitions of propaganda include
the concept of persuasion”, however, with disinformation propaganda is situated
where “either the focus is based on some unlawful act or the message is a
misrepresentation of a lawful act or true situation” whose effectiveness is
determined through immediate decision-making with no room for fact checking of
said disinformation.[ix] To
carry on with how disinformation can be weaponized, two primary examples will
be taken into consideration: Donald Trump and his “triumph of brazen
fabulation”[x]
and Russia’s disinformation war to garner further geopolitical power.
THIRD – Trump ‘Truths’ and
the Deliberate Use of Fake News
Arthur Goldhammer writes, Trump’s “truth derives not from tentative
and fallible reckoning of future probabilities but from primal instincts. He
tells it like it is, or, rather, like his minions, feeding endlessly on silos
of factoid and fabrication.”[xi]
As a result, political disinformation is thus ensconced within the social
fabric leading to “a feedback loop of deception” and a shift in “attitude
toward evidence and even truth itself.”[xii]
This was clearly demonstrated in the sheer amount of disinformation and fake
news tweeted by the President-elect himself. BuzzFeed News provided a detailed analysis of Trump’s twitter
account since the launch of his presidential campaign up until November 17,
2016. The analysis determined the following:
“When
it comes to news sources, the stories tweeted by Trump…suggest that he is
unfazed by news of questionable accuracy, likely to rely on hyper-partisan
news, and apt to promote mainstream news only when it validates his opinions…Trump’s
reliance on sources and stories of questionable accuracy stands out both in
frequency and in engagement. The stories shared by Trump’s account throughout
his campaign suggest the president-elect has constructed a powerful online
filter bubble that largely flatters and confirms that which he claims to be
true.”[xiii]
With over 16 million followers, the profound impact on
audience perceptions is tremendous. Interestingly, the feedback loop and
attitudes towards truth that Michal Lynch speaks of is portrayed through the fake
news stories that went viral on social media websites, including Facebook,
which were pro-Trump in nature and disseminated from a group of hackers
situated in Macedonia. Shortly prior to the US elections, BuzzFeed News reported that “the
top-performing fake election news stories on Facebook generated more engagement
than the top stories from major news outlets such as the New York Times, Washington
Post, Huffington Post, NBC
News, and others.”[xiv]
So how then have news agencies and prominent news outlets countered
disinformation?
Fact checking was the main
approach applied by several news agencies, and when there were major
discrepancies, news outlets responded. However, is this enough? As Goldhammer
correctly asserts, “facts are still checked, but falsehood is no longer
penalized: The enormity of Trump’s lies and the rapidity with which he dropped
his bombs on the ever vulnerable news cycle…[where] opponents were left
sputtering, while the media was transfixed by the sheer chutzpah of a
candidate” whereby “such assertions cannot be ‘fact-checked’.”[xv]
FOURTH – Russia’s Hostile Disinformation War
Russia has come to the forefront of
the disinformation war in the digital media age. It has far exceeded the former
Soviet Union’s capacities with the flow of propaganda both internally and
externally. With near total control of mass media within the state, and renewed
attention to the international broadcasting organization, RT, the Russian government is now able to limit the access to
information by the Russian public, “focusing attention on external threats
rather than internal problems” within the state, thus engaging in an
international disinformation war to garner support for Russian foreign policy
maneuvers.[xvi]
Like the case of Crimea and Eastern
Ukraine, Russia has expertly waged a disinformation campaign on the Syrian
crisis both via television, covert channels and online media formats. Russia is
engaging in tactics similar to that of the former Soviet Union by planting
false stories, however the difference between then and now is that the speed
and sheer volume of disinformation dissemination is much faster and larger,
reaching a wider audience both on the local and global stage. Russian
disinformation – dezinformatsiya – has a
fundamental purpose, that is, “to undermine the official version of events —
even the very idea that there is a true version of events — and foster a kind
of policy paralysis.”[xvii] As
the RAND Corporation reports, by emphasising the creation of first impressions,
Russia’s disinformation propaganda model creates a resilience and reinforcement
of ideas and perceptions through repetition, whether through RT or the myriad
online websites that cannot be formerly connected to the news organization.[xviii]
It
is this very particular policy paralysis that has various states within the
European Union (EU) and the United States leaning towards taking action. In the
case of Europe, many “upstart political parties’ messaging fits neatly into a
pro-Russian narrative.”[xix]
Examples include Marine Le Pen of the National Front in France, and the UK
Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage who both have had abysmal narratives on
the Syrian Crisis, supporting Russia’s current role and airstrikes targeting
civilian populations in Aleppo. As Kavitha Surana reports, the link between
Europe’s rising anti-establishment movements and the Kremlin’s disinformation
campaign “is aimed at undermining trust in democratic institutions, weakening
NATO, and shifting debates in Europe to benefit Russia.”[xx]
In
response to this shift, the European Parliament passed a resolution responding
to Russian disinformation, which recommends the monitoring of sources of
financing for anti-European propaganda, support of task forces to highlight
disinformation tactics, and requesting the European Commission to provide
financial support to independent media outlets.[xxi]
Whilst the European resolution is a positive first step, prospects for true
implementation are still weak.
A similar tactic was applied by the
United States, whereby efforts to combat Russia’s foreign propaganda advanced
in Congress in late November 2016. Congressional negotiators “approved an
initiative to track and combat foreign propaganda amid growing concerns that
Russian efforts to spread ‘fake news’ and disinformation threaten US national
security.”[xxii]
Like the EU’s resolution, the US initiative calls for government-wide efforts
to identify and counter propaganda efforts with factual reporting. Should the US
House and Senate approve this measure, then it could reach President Obama,
leading to the “most significant initiative against foreign government’s
disinformation campaigns since the 1990s.”[xxiii] Considering President
Obama has less than two months left in office, will the newly elected Trump
administration carry forward such an initiative? Or will we witness a
convergence of tactics applied by Trump and Putin to further exasperate
disinformation in the digital media wars?
Conclusion – Post-Truth and Ethical Perceptions
With the above analysis we have
witnessed a repeat in measures employed by politicians and governments to sway
public perceptions. Steven Kates reiterates this notion, stating “politicians
have employed the media in many varied contexts, ostensibly using it to create
and develop their images, explain their platforms, and communicate various
types of messages to the public.”[xxiv] In the postmodern
perspective, political process must provide truth and adequate information
through access to various channels of communication.[xxv] This assumption is
problematic because it assumes that the public is unable or unwilling to
decipher and evaluate the information communicated rather than viewing “the
participation of the ordinary citizen” as “significantly constrained by the
boundaries of the ‘received view’ of established discourse.”[xxvi] But where does the
responsibility lie?
Whilst a critical feature of media
rituals “is the selectivity of the participants in accepting or rejecting
certain communication messages”[xxvii] still applies, it is
not enough to place sole responsibility on the audience “to obtain enough
information in order to discount falsehoods and forge their own version of the
truth.” This is especially in light of advances in digital media; news outlets need
to take the lead in providing independent, in-depth and objective coverage of
issues and analysis to overcome the tirade of disinformation in the post-truth
era.
[i] Rothkopf,
David J. 1999. "The Disinformation Age". Foreign Policy, no.
114: 82. doi:10.2307/1149592.
[ii] Fallis,
Don. 2015. "What Is Disinformation?". Library Trends 63 (3):
401-426. doi:10.1353/lib.2015.0014.
[iii] Stahl,
Bernd Carsten. 2016. "On The Difference or Equality of Information,
Misinformation, And Disinformation: A Critical Research Perspective". Informing
Science Journal 9: 83-96. http://inform.nu/Articles/Vol9/v9p083-096Stahl65.pdf.
[iv] Fallis,
Don. 2015. "What Is Disinformation?". Library Trends 63 (3):
401-426. doi:10.1353/lib.2015.0014.
[v] Fetzer,
James H. 2004. "Disinformation: The Use of False Information". Minds
and Machines 14 (2): 231-240. doi:10.1023/b:mind.0000021683.28604.5b.
[vi] Fallis,
Don. 2015. "What Is Disinformation?". Library Trends 63 (3):
401-426. doi:10.1353/lib.2015.0014.
[vii] Weinstein, Kenneth. "Countering
Disinformation with Information: Defeating Adversary Propaganda to Win Hearts
and Minds." Hampton Roads International Security Quarterly (Jan
01, 2016): 101. http://simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/docview/1754669285?accountid=12219.
[ix] Martin, L. John. 1982.
"Disinformation: An Instrumentality In The Propaganda Arsenal". Political
Communication 2 (1): 47-64. doi:10.1080/10584609.1982.9962747.
[x] Goldhammer, Arthur. 2016. "Can
Truth Survive Trump?". Democracy Journal. http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/43/can-truth-survive-trump/.
[xii] Lynch, Michael P. 2016. "Fake
News And The Internet Shell Game". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/28/opinion/fake-news-and-the-internet-shell-game.html?_r=0.
[xiii]
Warzel, Charlie and Lam Thuy
Vo. 2016. "Where Does Trump Get His News?". BuzzFeed News. https://www.buzzfeed.com/charliewarzel/trumps-information-universe?utm_term=.ibKxxGXY91#.xw1ddwQ1ep.
[xiv] Silverman, Craig. 2016. "Here's
How Fake Election News Outperformed Real Election News On Facebook". Buzzfeed
News. https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/viral-fake-election-news-outperformed-real-news-on-facebook?utm_term=.rnDkkVx2v9#.cbaQQMe5nj.
[xv] Goldhammer, Arthur. 2016. "Can
Truth Survive Trump?". Democracy Journal. http://democracyjournal.org/magazine/43/can-truth-survive-trump/.
[xvi] Mizzi, Shannon. 2016. "Russia’S
Disinformation War". Georgetown Security Studies Review. http://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2016/10/25/russias-disinformation-war/.
[xvii]
MacFarquhar, Neil. 2016.
"A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread Of False Stories". New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.html.
[xviii]
Paul, Christopher and William
Courtney. 2016. "Russian Propaganda Is Pervasive, And America Is Behind
The Power Curve In Countering It | RAND". Rand.Org. http://www.rand.org/blog/2016/09/russian-propaganda-is-pervasive-and-america-is-behind.html.
[xix] Surana, Kavitha. 2016. "The EU
Moves To Counter Russian Disinformation Campaign". Foreign Policy. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/23/the-eu-moves-to-counter-russian-disinformation-campaign-populism/.
[xxii]
Timberg, Craig. 2016.
"Effort To Combat Foreign Propaganda Advances In Congress". The Washington
Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/effort-to-combat-foreign-propaganda-advances-in-congress/2016/11/30/9147e1ac-e221-47be-ab92-9f2f7e69d452_story.html?utm_term=.bf5a075fa602.
[xxiv]
Kates, Steven. 1998. "A
Qualitative Exploration Into Voters' Ethical Perceptions Of Political Advertising:
Discourse, Disinformation, And Moral Boundaries". Journal Of Business
Ethics 17 (16): 1871-1885. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074024.
[xxvii]
Ibid.