"Trump echoes RT's line that all news reporting is biased in some way, and his social media output clearly flatters the views of his followers and allies. Trump's tweets are, intentionally or not, perfectly calibrated to exploit the same effect as RT: audiences seek out content that accords with their political beliefs, and ignore information that does not correspond to their biases. This effect is even clearer where people have strong political beliefs and ideologically segregated social media networks, because algorithms lock our preferences into our social media experience. Counterintuitively, we're most likely to enter into debate with people with similar views to our own, not those who we perceive as being different and who can offer an alternative world view. Worst of all, if much of your social media following is made up of automated "bots" primed to repeat, circulate and amplify particular messages - as seems likely in Trump's case - then the volume of echoes increases exponentially. The result? Political opinions are polarised, with completely fabricated stories more widely shared (and believed) than genuine news..."
By
As stories of Russian "Information campaigning in various forms is as old as politics itself, and nor is it the sole province of political bogeymen. Research shows that Whether this is public relations, public diplomacy, or propaganda is a A case in point is the Kremlin-funded international broadcaster RT, formerly Russia Today. The network has Yet despite the concerns of high-ranking figures, the US State Department has claimed none of the US$80m recently allocated by Congress for informational countermeasures, and the bulk of the funds will While many in US intelligence and politics seem to take RT's self-reported audience figures as read, the channel's official data is optimistic compared to its Some
information warfare" in various democracies are better than autocracies at influencing foreign public opinion, and businesses, politicians and states all use the mass media strategically for their information campaigns. Western matter of perspective. But the names we give a particular information campaign not only reflect our inferences about its aims; they can in fact amplify its power and advance its goals. been sanctioned by media watchdogs for its " misleading" coverage, even as it gathered five Emmy nominations for its investigative reporting. It was even cited by Hillary Clinton in 2011 as an example of an " information war" she said the West was losing - unwittingly describing things to come in her own career. countries continue to mount, governments, intelligence agencies and journalists are fretting over the influence of global media outlets funded by autocratic governments. But while these organisations are clearly meant to serve their sponsor governments' agendas in various ways, is the West right to be so worried about them?
expire if not claimed by the end of September 2017. Some fear that the US is reluctant to risk a Russian backlash by leading a counter-disinformation offensive, leaving the legwork to initiatives like the But just how much influence RT and similar outlets wield is very much open to question. controversial Flattering bias new externally verified viewing figures. And despite RT's pride at being " argue that RT's smaller political audience is self-selecting: those who mistrust the mainstream establishment and are partial to conspiracy theories. However, this is all guesswork: so far, there has been little scholarly attention to RT's audience engagement, despite its social media advantage over its competitors during breaking news events. (The University of Manchester and Open University will soon address this knowledge gap with the Reframing Russia project, the first systematic examination of RT's audiences, ethos and multiplatform output.) the most watched news network on YouTube", most of its views go to apolitical clickbait human interest stories and coverage of natural disasters. Hamilton 68 dashboard, which claims to track Russian-backed influence campaigns across the web and social media.
The network's PR strategy skilfully uses these criticisms to cater to the biases of an anti-establishment generation. Its motto encourages viewers to " Question More", and its various advertising campaigns have successfully exhibited Western contempt and suspicion as a badge of honour.
While RT may have limited capacity to influence those not already sympathetic to its aims, its reach across social and traditional media, and freedom from any commitment to impartiality, equip it perfectly for an atmosphere of rumour and counter-rumour.
This brings us back to Donald Trump and his ongoing crusade against the mainstream media.
Trump echoes RT's This effect is even clearer where people have strong political beliefs and Worst of all, if much of your social media following is made up of automated "These patterns are strongest among more But the effect is not uniform across the political spectrum. Crucially, fact-checking disputed stories does not help. Fact-check articles are Fears about particular outlets' "
line that all news reporting is biased in some way, and his social media output clearly flatters the views of his followers and allies. Trump's tweets are, intentionally or not, perfectly calibrated to exploit the same effect as RT: audiences seek out content that accords with their political beliefs, and ideologically segregated social media networks, because algorithms lock our preferences into our social media experience. Counterintuitively, we're most likely to enter into debate with people with similar views to our own, not those who we perceive as bots" primed to repeat, circulate and amplify particular messages - as seems likely in Trump's case - then the volume of echoes increases exponentially. The result? Political opinions are polarised, with completely fabricated stories more widely Playing the mainstream shared (and ideologically motivated groups, especially those on the political " fringe". While less partisan audiences still Research on the US media shows that conservative news websites are more likely than liberal ones to propagate fabricated stories, and conservative individuals are more likely to believe them - but that liberal media outlets are more likely to change their agenda in response. look to the mainstream media, the agenda of the mainstream media is nonetheless shifting in response to fringe groups' online interactions. As mainstream outlets report on social media trends, they amplify less influential than the stories they attack, and can actually help disseminate falsehoods to audiences who are prone to propaganda" stories are misplaced, since those stories generally only influence self-selecting " fringe" groups. What's really concerning is how these groups repeat and amplify their preferred messages, and how their efforts influence media agendas and shift the parameters of political debate. With trust in the media