The last posting
introduced the reader to what a team of Pew Research Center researchers found
concerning the 2016 election.[1] Specifically, they discovered that two
dynamics were very instrumental in the results of that election. The first being the result of a book, Clinton
Cash. That book made a series of
claims about how Hillary and Bill Clinton, through donations to their foundation
and speaker fees, garnered extensive payments augmenting their wealth to $130
million.
Through certain timings, the implications, without proof, was
that Mrs. Clinton was guilty of favoritism and even acceptance of bribes for
favorable decisions for moneyed interests while she was secretary of state. The overall aim was to establish a public
agenda that undid Clinton’s campaign to win the White House. What was of note, this effort began before
Trump became the Republican candidate – he simply benefited – and introduced
the American public to the right-wing information ecosystem that spread the
anti-Clinton message.
The second dynamic centers on the
disinformation the right-wing ecosystem spread through their propaganda. That effort zeroed in on misleading political
messaging with the intent to affect the attitudes and beliefs of targeted
segments of the electorate. Further, as
part of that messaging, these operatives seemed to discourage critical reflection
over the policies and political choices confronting their interests. And here their tactics had become quite
sophisticated.
Using
psychological elements of memory and belief structures with the utilization of
online, interlinked sites, the designers were able to have their viewers accept
a version of the truth. That is, by applying repetition and
familiarity techniques, that affect what people remember and hold as true, these
propagandists met with significant success as they directed and implied renditions
of political claims beneficial to their political goals.
Their
strategy, more specifically, was to develop a presentation of their “facts” to
an array of media outlets. Through these
efforts and the use of memes (cultural messaging that usually use humor or
other attention-grabbing techniques that play on cultural symbols), the
designers produced a series of mutually reinforcing images that portrayed
Clinton in certain lights.
For
example, she was seen as friendly with Arabs by citing specific incidents within
highlighted countries irrespective of the substance of such examples. In one case she was seen mingling with
Moroccans, a people that the US has a very positive relationship but of which
Americans in general have little knowledge.
The image portrayed is she is friendly with Muslims, a group, common lore
identifies as problematic to American interests.
From
these images, the designers concocted stories that evolved into folklore which
reinforced in-group/out-group tensions among those who viewed the messaging. And this messaging did not end with the
election of Trump but intensified afterward.
The aim then was not so much to garner votes but to ward off ill effects
of the various scandals that have surrounded the President through the years of
his term in office.
How
should these efforts be addressed?
The challenge in combating this
second dynamic, too, is that there are no easy fixes. If indeed Russia played a
significant role in waging a propaganda war, certainly efforts to identify
these interventions and expose them in real time are important. To the extent
that political clickbait can be shown to have had a measurable influence on
beliefs, countermeasures by the leading platforms, Facebook and Google, may
help. But if the fundamental challenge comes from inside the political system
and consists of political communication within a major wing of the American
political system, the solution is far from obvious.[2]
Again, as with the first dynamic, any efforts to reign in
(through regulations) these practices – assuming one thinks they should be – meet
with the rights guarantees of the First Amendment. Yet in the eyes of many, especially if one
can establish a role by a foreign – and in this case hostile – government,
people can define this dynamic as a genuine threat to the nation’s democratic standing
in its government and politics.
The Pew researchers suggest that solutions need to
originate from within the nation’s political system. And here, ironically, American conservatives
– those put off by what has happened to the Republican Party under Trump – play
a pivotal role albeit a difficult one. That
role is to communicate a counter message in conservative speak to questioning
conservatives. The current campaign
season has seen that strategy through the messaging of the Lincoln Project.
Another necessary type of player is news people. Journalists that ply their trade in venues
that are seen and listened to by “crossover” voters – those not committed to one
party but venture back and forth – can provide accurate information that can
dispel misleading information or information that is not true. In addition, these reporters need to be on
guard against purposeful information meant to mislead them which has happened
on various occasions.
But fundamentally, one needs to find a workable solution in
the very politics of the nation. That
is, if this sort of extreme messaging continues to be effective, i.e., they win
elections and provide monetary rewards to the networks that give it space,
these practices will continue. And here,
the Pew report states, “While the ecosystem around Breitbart and other
right-wing outlets constitutes a tightly insulated echo chamber, this isolated
conversation proved immensely powerful in setting the broader agenda of the
2016 president campaign.”[3] The Pew researchers cast this insight as a
paradox.
That is, it is a paradox in that this echo chamber permits
an ongoing re-circulation of ideas and those ideas continue to work their way
into the broader media outlets. They go
way beyond Breitbart consumers. It was
this spread that led, among other causes, to the election of Trump. Without it, Trump would not have won the
electoral college vote. This spread of
the Breitbart message, beyond right-wing circles, set the anti-Clinton image
broadly and repeatedly across the media landscape. Her scandals became item one in what was
mentioned and over what was commented in mainstream media outlets.
And so, a meaningful address of this “problem” of
misinformation needs to be centered on the employed strategies of those who
practice it. What are they; how do they
gain traction; and how can one effectively counter their effects? This needs to be a holistic view of the
media world in all its complex aspects.
[1] Robert Faris, Hal Roberts, Bruce
Etling, Nikki Bourassa, Ethan Zuckerman, and Yochai Benkler, “Partisanship,
Propaganda, & Disinformation: Online Media & the 2016 U.S. Presidential
Election,” Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard Library (n.d.),
accessed August 19, 2020, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/76a9/3eb0bed8ff032c44186678c5279f20cc5ff8.pdf?_ga=2.230250332.1151241653.1597869609-1463880478.1597869609 .
[2]
Ibid., 130-131.
[3]
Ibid., 132.
No comments:
Post a Comment