Disinformation and the Structural Transformations of the Public Arena: Addressing the Actual Challenges to Democracy

Abstract

Current debate is dominated by fears of the threats of digital technology for democracy. One typical example is the perceived threats of malicious actors promoting disinformation through digital channels to sow confusion and exacerbate political divisions. The prominence of the threat of digital disinformation in the public imagination, however, is not supported by empirical findings which instead indicate that disinformation is a limited problem with limited reach among the public. Its prominence in public discourse is instead best understood as a “moral panic.” In this article, we argue that we should shift attention from these evocative but empirically marginal phenomena of deviance connected with digital media toward the structural transformations that give rise to these fears, namely those that have impacted information flows and attention allocation in the public arena. This account centers on structural transformations of the public arena and associated new challenges, especially in relation to gatekeepers, old and new. How the public arena serves actually existing democracy will not be addressed by focusing on disinformation, but rather by addressing structural transformations and the new challenges that arise from these.

Demystifying the COVID-19 Infodemic: Conspiracies, Context, and the Agency of Users

“…This risks magnifying the very aspects that are considered aberrant, and disregarding forms of communication around the pandemic that could contribute to an image of the internet that, to some extent, adheres to the ideal. In other words, the absence of data that can contextualize the relevance of the "infodemic" as a partial, even if significant, part of broader social media dynamics risks providing an even bleaker picture of the status of online communication, which can, at worst, take on the characteristics of a new "moral panic" about the information disorder globally (Jungherr & Schroeder, 2021). This limitation reflects broader academic fashions.…”

Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges

“…Because of this disconnect between public discourse and empirical findings, a growing body of research argues that alarmist narratives about misinformation should be understood as a "moral panic" (Anderson, 2021;Carlson, 2020;Jungherr & Schroeder, 2021;Marwick, 2018;Mitchelstein et al, 2020;Nyhan, 2020;Simons, 2018). In particular, these narratives can be characterized as one of the many "technopanics" (Marwick, 2008) that have emerged with the rise of digital media.…”

“…The "Myth of the War of the Worlds Panic" (Slate, 2013) illustrates how academic research can fuel, and legitimize, misconceptions on misinformation. A plethora of research has documented the role played by media and political discourse in building an alarmist narrative on misinformation (Anderson, 2021;Carlson, 2020;Jungherr & Schroeder, 2021;Marwick, 2018;Mitchelstein et al, 2020;Nyhan, 2020;Simons, 2018). Here, we offer a critical review of academic discourse on misinformation, which suddenly erupted after the 2016 US presidential election with the publication of more than two thousand scientific articles (Allen, Howland, et al, 2020;Righetti, 2021).…”

Right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy mentality, and susceptibility to distorted alternative news

“…In none of the studies did exposure to distorted news increase threat ascribed to refugees or voting intentions. As such, our findings contribute to the growing call for a more nuanced understanding with regard to the threat from distorted news and related phenomena (Jungherr & Schroeder, 2021;Nyhan, 2020). Former findings on the effects of legacy news (Igartua et al, 2011;De Vreese & Semetko, 2004) cannot be directly transferred to distorted news effects.…”