Partisanship, Impeachment, and the Democratic Primaries: American Political Discourse, January - February 2020

Faris, Robert; Clark, Justin; Etling, Bruce; Kaiser, Jonas; Roberts, Hal; Schmitt, Carolyn; Tilton, Casey; Benkler, Yochai

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3717670

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While a full bibliometric analysis with a methods section is beyond the scope of this article, examples were chosen first through signs of influence and visibility, such as articles in highimpact factor journals in media and communication studies according to Scopus, Web of science, and Google Scholar. White papers commonly cited in these high-impact articles were explored on Google Scholar for citation count and the highest four are referenced throughout the article (Faris et al, 2017;Lewis & Marwick, 2017;Tucker et al, 2018;Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). There is inevitably some subjective assembling of an archive that becomes explicit and implicit DS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three Critiques of Disinformation (For-Hire) Scholarship: Definitional Vortexes, Disciplinary Unneighborliness, and Cryptonormativity

Harsin

2024

Social Media + Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents three critiques of disinformation scholarship, with an emphasis on “for-hire.” The article argues that disinformation is defined in unpromising and contradictory ways. Concepts have ontological and epistemological repercussions, and thus far, disinformation scholarship has failed to engage them. Partly because scholars are studying disinformation even when they do not use that word to label their work, the article argues that explicit disinformation scholarship tends to neglect neighboring fields and scholars—the second critique. By most definitions of the term disinformation, neighbors are researching the same object domain, which could provide rich resources for scholars newly attracted to “disinformation”: propaganda, public relations, promotional culture, political consulting/marketing, and post-truth studies. It discusses the neighbors’ deep historical and contemporary research on for-hire deceptive communication, including that pertaining to social media. The third critique argues that disinformation scholarship has a cryptonormative tendency, evident in language of disorder, threats, dysfunctions, and pollution; it therefore needs more overt normative justification (or defense of anti-normativity). The cryptonormativity also entails a tendency toward ethnocentrism. The article ends by questioning whether disinformation is conceptually suitable for the theoretical work with which it tasks itself.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%