No abstract

For the past half-decade, disinformation and misinformation have been discussed in the public sphere as the construct ‘fake news’, through a discourse of crisis and, increasingly, in terms of responses, remedies, solutions, interventions and preventative affordances. This article explores the emergence of the crisis–remedy discourse of disinformation, arguing that responsiveness is grounded in a solutionism that positions ‘fake news’ as crisis. Drawing on select examples, we use a cultural approach to analyse a range of remedies put forward in public sphere, policy and scholarly discourse. We identify three frameworks of the crisis–remedy discourse: alarmism, regulation/eradication, and adaptation. The article presents examples of five remedial approaches and theorises their alignment with different crisis frameworks. By thinking through the cultural formation of different remedies, we aim to draw out cultural studies’ utility in future efforts to determine the efficacy and ethics of current and future solutions to disinformation.

While “good refugee” stories have the potential to soften attitudes toward forcibly displaced people, there are hidden implications associated with this construct that must be considered. Based on 60 qualitative interviews with asylum seekers and refugees, this paper examines the ways forced migrants adopt and reproduce “good refugee” discourses that unintentionally position their belonging as contingent upon upholding narrowly defined, and arbitrary, ideals about deservingness. By critically analysing this discourse, we highlight the importance of reconsidering the construction of refugees' deservingness along moral and neoliberal lines and instead present a case for approaches that focus on rights‐based, humanitarian grounds for refugee resettlement.

Media narratives that dehumanise asylum seekers have tremendous power to shape and reinforce public support for policies that jeopardise the well-being of some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Research suggests that such dehumanisation is exacerbated by the limited opportunities these groups have to contribute to media coverage about their experiences. In response, scholars have advocated for more inclusion of asylum seekers’ voices in news coverage; however, little is known about how Australian media audiences are engaging with this issue. This article discusses research utilising Critical Discourse Analysis alongside a cultural studies Audience Reception framework to examine the perspectives of 24 Western Australians concerning news discourses about asylum seekers. Resistance to dehumanising constructions was a recurring theme, with many participants arguing for greater inclusion of asylum seekers voices’ in news depictions of their plight. These findings suggest that some audiences are challenging and resisting dehumanising discourses about asylum seekers and in some cases, demonstrating awareness of Australian media’s evident exclusion of their voices. Examined through Judith Butler’s social ethics lens, we consider these findings in the light of positions that advocate for the provision of voice as a means to a more ethical and inclusive Australian media.

No abstract