Samenvatting
The Politics of Difference - Final Exam (summary of 6 weeks)
- Instelling
- Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
My notes are based on the course material (readings) and lectures. I scored a 7.3 for this subject.
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 54 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 54 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Verkoper
Volgen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
WEEK 1Bennett and Livingston - A Brief History of the Disinformation Age
Contemporary democracies face growing levels of disruptive communication such as fake news, disinformation,
and misinformation. In many nations, conspiracies are circulating, manufacturing “alternative facts”, inventing
imagined incidents, or blaming political opponents for real ones.
Disinformation: intentional falsehoods or distortions, often spread as news, to advance political goals such as
discrediting opponents, disrupting policy debates, influencing voters, inflaming existing social conflicts, or
creating a general backdrop of confusion and informational paralysis.
Disinformation disorder: it is considered the reason behind the current crisis of the legitimacy of authoritative
institutions. In a healthy public sphere, debates are grounded in a blend of political ideals, evidence, and
established norms for resolving disagreements. However, these standards have been replaced by deliberate
misinformation and careless lies, undermining democracy by distorting facts on critical issues like immigration
and climate change. This erosion of reasoned debate prevents institutions from effectively mediating political
differences, leading to a breakdown in the mechanisms that traditionally maintained a consensus on facts and
norms.
Example: In Hungary, Poland, and Turkey, disinformation supports authoritarian transitions with overt press
censorship and the suspension of basic rights and legal processes. These ruptures in shared political reality
undermine basic norms and communication processes on which democracies depend for policy-making, conflict
resolution, acceptance of outcomes, and general civility.
Conventional explanations for disinformation
Conventional explanations: mainly focused on social media like YouTube and Facebook. They argue that
platforms are engineered to favor content that engages users through emotional reactions, like anger, leading to
the proliferation and monetization of disinformation. Many solutions proposed, which are still on the surface
level emphasize fact-checking efforts, initiatives to improve media literacy, and calls for social media
companies like Facebook and YouTube to more rigorously monitor and regulate the content on their
platforms.
Critique: though generally well-intentioned, these approaches are unlikely to produce the desired results, in part
because growing numbers of citizens want to believe alternative facts that appeal to the deeper emotional truths
and feelings of political and economic marginalization. Moreover, it is unlikely that elected officials supported
by such followers would regard efforts to regulate their communication on social media as anything but
censorship.
Platforms' algorithms and business models: prioritize user engagement over the accuracy of information, thus
facilitating the spread of disinformation. This approach to combat disinformation through fact-checking and
correcting misconceptions is based on the belief in individual cognitive biases. People tend to favor comforting
falsehoods and conspiracy theories, which align with their existing beliefs and emotions. This psychological
pattern, including confirmation bias and motivated skepticism, leads to polarization and can even intensify
beliefs when challenged, a phenomenon known as the backfire effect.
Bennett and Livingston: social media platforms alone are not to blame for the rise of disinformation, arguing
that such a view ignores the broader collapse of institutional authority that has eroded trust in official
information. They suggest that blaming social media misses the larger issue of political and economic forces
that have led to the widespread dissemination of disinformation. Moreover, they criticize solutions that focus
solely on fact-checking and media literacy, as these do not address the emotional and psychological reasons
why people are drawn to disinformation, nor the systemic production of disinformation by vested interests and
political actors.
, A deeper institutional explanation
Our post-fact era is explained by the systematic weakening of authoritative institutions of liberal democracy.
Before, conspiracy theories and hateful and crackpot ideas were circulating on the fringes of society or at least
were held in check by institutional vetting and gatekeeping. When a large majority of the population trusted
parties, governments, and institutions at higher levels, unhinged ideas were not given traction in mainstream
media. Today, information disorder is the result of the erosion of liberal democratic institutions, especially those
involved in vetting political claims according to the authority of evidence, and by established processes and
norms.
In politics, the assessment of actions relies on the integrity of institutions like the independent judiciaries that
adhere to rules of evidence and precedence in reaching decisions, peer-reviewed science, professional
journalism that faces reputational costs for inaccurate reporting, and apolitical civil services that promulgate
and enforce regulations according to best available practices and scientific evidence.
Political parties also play a role in reflecting the will of the people. When these institutions are trusted, they
help ensure political debates are based on reliable interpretations of facts, not “alternative facts”. However, this
trust has been eroded over time due to sustained political and economic pressures.
Example: as ideologies and competing views about regulating markets or the role of government in providing
social welfare have faded, once distinctive political parties have turned to branding, product marketing, and
strategic communication techniques to win votes.
From spin to disinformation
The disruptive nature of current political communication is rooted in what Murray Eldman called “the banality
of mainstream political discourses” (= increasing disconnection of mainstream political parties from their
traditional voter base). This gap has widened over decades due to the declining influence of popular groups like
labor unions and the rising impact of corporate interests on policy, leading to a sense of detachment among
traditional voters.
Bennet and Livingston: information credibility depends on authoritative sources offering diverse value positions
supported by evidence on why those positions make sense. When public confidence erodes due to lying,
deception, and a steady diet of spin and banal rhetoric from once credible authorities, the result is a decline in
public trust in the information produced by those official sources, and in the press that carries their messages.
Radical right: the preponderance of this transgressive, reason-bending communication stems largely from the
radical right. From the Trump-inflected Republicans in the United States to the Alternative für Deutschland
party in Germany, the Sweden Democrats, or the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in Britain that was displaced
by a radicalized Conservative Party under Boris Johnson, a host of new or reinvented radical-right parties have
adopted nostalgic, reactionary visions that support emotional nationalist agendas. These agendas attack elite
“deep state” and “globalist” institutions with conspiracy theories and widen social divisions with racism,
religious hatred, alarming stories about migrants, and other exclusionary discourses.
Early 20th Century Origins
Early 1900s: American and European societies faced political unrest from radical labor movements against
robber barons to the specter of socialism spreading from Europe. In this period, elites discussed strategies for
the responsible management of popular passions to prevent further disruptions of political and economic
systems, particularly in the United States, which had escaped the worst ravages of World War I and its
aftermath.
,Managing public opinion: this concept emerged from communication strategies used to shape public
impressions of events such as the Ludlow, Colorado massacre in which armed guards of mine owner John D.
Rockefeller, Jr., along with national guard troops, fired into an encampment of striking miners and their
families.
Bernays: justified propaganda as a means to manage society, an idea later rebranded as public relations due to
its misuse by totalitarian regimes. Example: the greatest communication success of all was selling the US entry
into World War I saying that it would “Make the World Safe for Democracy” (the credit for this is given to
Bernays who gave the justification for the uses of what was then called propaganda to manage unruly
democratic societies).
Until the late 20th century, communication frameworks between democratic institutions and the public were
effective. Post-World War II to the 1980s saw coherent messages from parties to a broadly trusting public.
Despite the trust dips from scandals like Watergate, institutional trust rebounded. However, the Vietnam and Iraq
wars, alongside corporate misinformation (e.g. tobacco and pesticide safety claims), started eroding this trust,
leading to a credibility gap. This period marked a shift towards more systemic deception as networks of
neoliberal economists and libertarian interests pushed for free-market economics, leveraging think tanks and
academia to influence public opinion and policy.
Mid-Twentieth Century: The Weaponization of Ideas for Limited Government
After WWII: a network of prominent public intellectuals and economists from Europe and the United States
gathered around the Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek to explore the “crisis of civilization” created by
oppressive government. The aim was to develop strategies to promote a utopian vision for reorganizing
societies around free markets, which were thought to be arbiters of truth in the allocation of social values.
That network named itself the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) after its early Swiss meeting place overlooking Lake
Geneva. The movement aimed to reduce government control over businesses and markets, promoted by a
global network of elites through think tanks and political groups. The Institute of Economic Affairs, established
by Anthony Fraser in 1955, played a key role in advancing this agenda, notably influencing Margaret Thatcher's
policies towards privatization and austerity in the UK public sector.
The making of a political media monster
The exploitation of disinformation to fuel societal division has led to uncontrollable political dynamics,
diverging from the neoliberal agenda's initial intentions. The rise of right-wing populism, exemplified by the
unexpected political success of figures like Donald Trump, showcases the unpredictable outcomes of leveraging
divisive media strategies. This phenomenon underscores a fundamental flaw in neoliberal strategies: their
reliance on disinformation to sway public opinion, which has created deeply entrenched political and social
divisions, challenging the original architects' control and intentions.
1970s: MPS network members, including notable economists like Buchanan, Friedman, and Hayek, praised
Chile's economic model under Pinochet for prioritizing markets over politics. This admiration is reflected in the
adoption of neoliberal policies, famously termed "the miracle of Chile" by Friedman. These policies,
emphasizing market freedom over civil liberties, were institutionalized in Chile's constitution, illustrating the
neoliberal emphasis on economic freedom as a path to individual liberty from government intervention.
The great realignment: from Keynesian to free-market economics
From the Great Depression to the 1960s: Keynesian economics (= advocating for government spending)
dominated, leading to economic growth and equity. However, in the 1970s, economic crises and the end of the
Bretton Woods system opened doors for neoliberal policies, championed by figures like Thatcher and Reagan.
This shift towards free-market ideologies led to deregulation, weakened unions, and social and economic
disparities, fundamentally changing societal structures and political discourse towards market-oriented policies,
contributing to a fragmented social fabric, and altering traditional political alignments.
, The hollowing of politics and the age of spin
Since the 1990s: neoliberal policies have influenced OECD democracies, leading figures like Blair, Schroeder,
and Clinton to adopt privatization and austerity measures. This caused a rightward shift in center-left parties,
eroding their ability to address domestic issues effectively and disconnecting them from voters' needs in critical
areas such as health and welfare. The decline in trust towards democratic institutions and mainstream media
exacerbated this disconnection, as political marketing and extreme discourse became prevalent, challenging the
integrity of democratic representation and governance.
Attacks on the institutional foundations of democracy
Within the U.S., a network led by wealthy libertarians, notably the Kochs, significantly influences democracy
through funding and strategic efforts. This "Kochtopus" supports numerous political actions, including
advocating for unlimited political donations, suppressing diverse voter groups, weakening labor unions,
curtailing consumer rights, reducing social benefits, deregulating protective laws, manipulating electoral
districts, appointing biased judges, discrediting scientific findings, and undermining media credibility, aiming to
reshape democratic principles and governance.
Key initiatives:
1. Killing restrictions on political spending by corporations and the rich. This was realized by the 2010
Citizens United Supreme Court decision that essentially lifted limitations on political donations.
2. Suppressing the voting rights of students, people of color, the elderly, and others who tend to
oppose Republican policies and candidates.
3. Undermining labor unions e.g. Janus versus AFSCME case.
4. Eliminating the right of consumers, workers, and others to sue corporations, forcing them instead
into corporate-controlled arbitration.
5. Eliminating the social safety net including food stamps, jobless benefits, Social Security, Medicare,
and Medicaid.
6. Eliminating regulations that protect people and the environment from corporate abuse.
7. Gerrymandering voting districts.
8. Packing courts with pro-corporate judges, and staffing executive agencies, particularly during and
after the Trump transition.
9. Undermining confidence in science and sowing confusion about climate change, the
environmental damage done by extractive industries, and the health effects of tobacco, sugar, and
other consumer products.
10. Undermining the legacy and credibility of news media, from Vice President Spiro Agnew’s now
quaint “nattering nabobs of negativism”, to out-of-touch liberal elites, and purveyors of fake news.
Disinformation and the functioning of democratic institutions
The decline in democratic health in the U.S., as indicated by its reclassification by The Economist from a "full"
to a "flawed" democracy, underscores the impact of political and communication strategies on democracy. This
scenario, compounded by the 2008 financial crisis and the proliferation of social media, has facilitated the rise
of radical right-wing movements, challenging the neoliberal order with populist rhetoric and selective critiques
of elite governance, while contributing to a landscape marked by disinformation and political polarization.
Conclusion: in this view, the answers to restoring evidence, reason, and respect for various civic norms lie in
repairing public institutions that have been damaged by information warfare intended to limit the ability of
people to regulate their own social and economic affairs. The solutions involve finding ways to restore more
representative and responsive parties, elections, and government, and to reinvent a press that may help develop
and tell that story.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper vanessaciconte. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €30,29. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67474 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen