A cudgel of repression: Analysing state instrumentalisation of the ‘fake news’ label in Southeast Asia

Abstract

Fake news has been recognised as a pressing issue by scholars, who have highlighted the destabilising impact it portends in societies. Beyond an understanding of the empirical effects of fake news on democratic institutions that recent scholarship has shed light on, emergent research also points to the potential of fake news being weaponised as a discursive tool to achieve political ends. In that light, this study sets out to analyse the discourses of fake news as advanced by states. Results from a critical discourse analysis of articles relating to fake news ( n = 450) from four countries – Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam – reveal four key findings: first, fake news is being framed as an existential security issue that directly threatens foundational societal values. Second, fake news as an issue is constructed as a new and unprecedented contemporary problem, and compared on equal terms to other security threats such as terrorism, chemical attacks and cyberwarfare. Third, the threat of fake news is used to justify the passing of broad-reaching legislation and curbs on free speech that are construed as aligned with global democratic norms. Lastly, the term is used to facilitate unsubstantiated ‘lying press’ accusations against media outlets. Overall, this study suggests that fake news can be damaging to the quality of democracies not only as a result of its dissemination, but also through the discursive instrumentalisation of the term to curb civil liberties and justify crackdowns.

How fact-checkers delimit their scope of practices and use sources: Comparing professional and partisan practitioners

“…However, in popular discourses, the term fake news is often appropriated by political actors, who may use it to describe commentaries they disagree with even though those commentaries may not contain false information (Tandoc, 2019). In debates about anti-fake news legislation, authoritarian governments are often criticized for defining the term broadly and vaguely so that relevant laws could facilitate censorship and consolidation of power (Neo, 2020). Meanwhile, there can indeed be cases where the media’s framing of an event can be subjected to reasonable criticisms, and propagandistic materials may be criticized for presenting one-sided narratives (Tandoc et al, 2018).…”

Fighting Fire With Fire? Relegitimizing Strategies for Media Institutions Faced With Unwarranted “Fake News” Accusations

“…In studying Trump's repeated ridicule of the mainstream press through derogatory labels such as "fake media," Ross and Rivers (2018) assert that these terms have been deployed with the objective of deterring the public from trusting news reports, many of which are critical of his presidency, and to position himself as the sole source of truth. Across in Southeast Asia and Oceania, Neo (2020) finds evidence of the use of the term by authoritarians to justify censorship and crackdowns against independent media outlets, while Farhall et al (2019) find that while Australian politicians' use of the fake news term is rare; it is not only amplified by news media but, concerningly, is seldom contested. They argue that this has negative consequences for public debate and trust in media and political.…”

Legalization of press control under democratic backsliding: The case of post-national security law Hong Kong

“…The rise of the fake news phenomenon, for another example, has led to debates about anti-disinformation legislation around the world. While democratic countries tend to reject such laws or severely restrict the scope of their operation, authoritarian states are often criticized for having anti-disinformation legislation with broad scope of application and vague definitions, thus potentially allowing the state to suppress freedom of expression in the name of combating fake news (Fernandez, 2019; Neo, 2022). This article thus defines legalization of political control as the establishment and employment of legal instruments to undermine actual and potential societal challenges to political power, and legalization of press control can be likewise defined as the establishment and employment of legal instruments to control media operations and journalistic work.…”

“…Second, while the laws constitute the core of legalization, the politics of legalization cannot be understood without examining the public discourses supporting legalization. Such discourses include the rationales and arguments evoked to justify the establishment of specific laws, such as discourses constructed to support fake news legislation (Lee and Lee, 2019; Neo, 2022). They include the state’s broader attempts to construct the overarching threats facing a nation, thus justifying the tightening of political control (Rajah, 2012).…”