Highbrow Magazine - propoganda https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/propoganda en Disinformation Is Often Blamed for Swaying Elections, but the Research Isn’t So Clear https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/24446-disinformation-often-blamed-swaying-elections-research-isn-t-so-clear <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Mon, 01/29/2024 - 16:44</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1vote_depositphotos_0.jpg?itok=yA6Q2WgU"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/1vote_depositphotos_0.jpg?itok=yA6Q2WgU" width="480" height="320" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Many countries face general elections this year. Political campaigning will include misleading and even false information. Just days ago, it was reported that a robocall impersonating U.S. President Joe Biden had told recipients not to vote in the presidential primary.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">But can disinformation significantly influence voting?</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">There are two typical styles of election campaigning. One is positive, presenting favorable attributes of politicians and their policies, and the other is negative — disparaging the opposition. The latter can backfire, though, or lead to voters disengaging with the entire democratic process.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Voters are already fairly savvy — they know that campaigning tactics often include distortions and untruths. Both types of tactics, positive and negative, can feature misinformation, which loosely refers to inaccurate, false, and misleading information. Sometimes this even counts as disinformation, because the details are deliberately designed to be misleading.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Unfortunately, recent research shows that the lack of clarity in defining misinformation and disinformation is a problem. There is no consensus. Scientifically and practically, this is bad. It’s hard to chart the scale of a problem if your starting point includes vague or confused concepts. This is a problem for the general public, too, given it makes it harder to decipher and trust research on the topic.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">For example, depending on how inclusive the definition is, propaganda, deep fakes, fake news, and conspiracy theories are all examples of disinformation. But news parody or political satire can be too.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Unfortunately, researchers often fail to provide clear definitions, and do not carefully compare different types of disinformation, adding uncertainty to evidence examining its effect on voting behavior.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Nevertheless, let’s investigate the research on disinformation so far, which is generally viewed as more serious than misinformation, to see how much influence it can really have on the way we vote.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><img src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/2vote_depositphotos.jpg" /></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Unconvincing findings</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Consider a study published in 2023, investigating the role of fake news in the Italian general elections in 2013 and 2018. It used debunking websites to help create a fake news score for articles published in the run-up to the election.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Then the researchers analyzed populist parties’ pre-election Facebook posts containing such news content. This also generated an engagement score based on the number of likes and shares of the posts.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Finally, scores were combined with actual electoral votes for populist parties to gauge the possible influence of fake news on such votes. The researchers estimated that fake news added a small but statistically significant electoral gain for populist parties. But the researchers suggested that fake news could not be the sole cause of the overall increase in vote share for populist parties — it only seemed to add a small amount to the overall increase in vote share.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Similar studies showing low effects of fake news on persuading voters has led some researchers to argue that the panic about fake news is overblown.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Other recent studies have looked at the potential influence of disinformation by asking people how they intended to vote and whether they believed specific pieces of disinformation. This was examined in national or presidential elections in the Czech Republic in 2021, Kenya in 2017, South Korea in 2017, Indonesia in 2019, Malaysia in 2018, Philippines in 2022 and Taiwan in 2018.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">The general finding among all these studies was that it is hard to establish a reliable causal influence of fake news on voting. One reason was that who people say they vote for and how they actually vote can be vastly different.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">In fact, research has gone into understanding the reasons for dramatic failures of traditional pollsters to predict elections and referendums in Argentina in 2019, Quebec in 2018, UK in 2016, and US in 2016. People didn’t, for many reasons, reveal their actual voting intentions to pollsters and researchers.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><img src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/2news_fake_-_depositphotos.jpg" /></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Who is susceptible?</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">What about specific groups of voters, though? Might there be some that are more influenced by disinformation than others? Political affiliation doesn’t seem to matter. People tend to rate fake news as accurate when it’s in line with their own political beliefs. For instance, in the 2016 US presidential elections, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump supporters were equally likely to rate fake news about their opposition as accurate.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">How about undecided voters? Some studies show that undecided voters are more likely than decided voters to consider fake news headlines as credible. But the opposite has also been shown — that they are less susceptible to political fake news.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Still, to maximize the influence of disinformation in an election, undecided voters would be the obvious target, especially in close-run elections. But accurately profiling undecided voters is difficult — especially since people are cautious in revealing their voting intentions and the reasons behind them.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">And if politicians or campaign staff use disinformation in aggressive negative campaigning to sway undecided voters, they can end up increasing disengagement in the election process — making some people even more undecided.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Ultimately, most research suggests that fake news is more likely to enhance existing beliefs and views rather than radically change voting intentions of the undecided.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">Another issue that often gets ignored is a phenomenon known in psychology as the third-person effect — that we think that others are more persuadable, and even gullible, than ourselves.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">So when it comes to who is susceptible to disinformation, it is likely that those studying it, as well as those participating in the studies, assume they are immune, but that anyone else, such as supporters of the opposing political party, are not — making the evidence harder to interpret.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">It would be naive to say that disinformation, such as political propaganda, doesn’t have any influence on voting. But we should be careful not to assign disinformation as the sole explanation for election results that go against predictions.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">If we assign disinformation such a high level of influence, we ultimately deny people’s agency in making free voting choices. And studies show that we are aware that manipulative methods are used on us. Still, we all judge that we can maintain an ability to make our own choice when voting.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif">It’s important to take this seriously. Our belief in free will is ultimately a reason so many of us back democracy in the first place. Denying it can arguably be more damaging than a few fake news posts lurking on social media.</span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><img src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/1italianpm_depositphotos.jpg" /></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong><em>This article was published by the Nieman Lab under a Creative Commons license, and originally published in <a href="https://theconversation.com/us">The Conversation</a>. It’s republished here with permission via <a href="https://marketplace.disco.info/searchArticles/index" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">Disco Content Marketplace</a>. </em></strong></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Author Bio:</strong></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong><em>Magda Osman is a principal research associate in basic and applied decision making at Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge. </em></strong></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Highbrow Magazine</strong></span></span></p> <p> </p> <p><em><span style="font-size:18px"><span style="font-family:Times New Roman,Times,serif"><strong>Photo Credits: <a href="https://depositphotos.com/stock-photography.html">Depositphotos.com</a></strong></span></span></em></p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/disinformation" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">disinformation</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fake-news" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">fake news</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2016" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2016</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/2020" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">2020</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fake-facts" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">fake facts</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/lies" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">lies</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">elections</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/voting-0" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">voting</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/voters" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">voters</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/propoganda" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">propoganda</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/influencing-elections" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">influencing elections</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/elections-results" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">elections results</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Magda Osman</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">In Slider</div></div></div> Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:44:17 +0000 tara 12982 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/24446-disinformation-often-blamed-swaying-elections-research-isn-t-so-clear#comments A ‘Post-Truth’ Society and the COVID-19 Pandemic https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/10674-post-truth-society-and-covid-pandemic <div class="field field-name-field-cat field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/news-features" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">News &amp; Features</a></div></div></div><span class="submitted-by">Submitted by tara on Mon, 06/01/2020 - 06:14</span><div class="field field-name-field-image field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="og:image rdfs:seeAlso" resource="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/2liesfakenews.jpg?itok=vd9dDkor"><img typeof="foaf:Image" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/2liesfakenews.jpg?itok=vd9dDkor" width="480" height="320" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" property="content:encoded"><p> </p> <p>“Factual truth,” <a href="https://idanlandau.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/arendt-truth-and-politics.pdf" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">claimed</a> the philosopher Hannah Arendt in the late 1960s, is “political by nature.” Facts are used to justify opinions, and conflicting opinions can be legitimately held about the same facts. “Freedom of opinion is a farce,” she argued, “unless the facts themselves are not in dispute.” At the same time, facts can be inconvenient for political life, which centers on debate over differing opinions. Truth is, after all, resistant to debate. “Unwelcome opinion,” Arendt pointed out, “can be argued with, rejected, or compromised upon, but unwelcome facts possess an infuriating stubbornness that nothing can move except plain lies.”</p> <p> </p> <p>The first two decades of the 21st century have forced a reconsideration of the role of truth in politics. Most notable has been the popularization of the term “post-truth” to not only characterize the politics of the era in nations such as the United States, Great Britain, South Africa, Russia, and Germany, but to describe a wider cultural retreat from a single shared reality into separate and incommensurable tribal worlds of social credo and emotional faith.</p> <p> </p> <p>Accordingly, it came as little surprise in 2016 when “post-truth” was named word of the year by the Oxford Dictionary. “I wouldn’t be surprised if post-truth becomes one of the defining words of our time,” predicted company president Casper Grathwohl. And so it has.</p> <p> </p> <p>In the same year that post-truth earned its lexical honors, fake news came of age in the U.S. with the election campaign of Donald Trump and the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/05/police-arrest-gunman-who-opened-fire-in-dc-pizza-shop-while-self-investigating-baseless-conspiracy-theory.html" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">arrest</a> of Edgar Maddison Welch, who traveled from North Carolina to Washington D.C. to fire his AR-15-style rifle inside the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria. Welch had come to rescue children who, according to a social-media-driven conspiracy theory, were being held hostage and sexually abused inside the restaurant. The claim, as it turned out, was completely false and politically motivated.</p> <p> </p> <p>The following year, 2017, was notable for the addition of a neo-Orwellian phrase to the post-truth glossary. It began on Jan 21, with White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer claiming of Trump’s inaugural ceremony, “This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration – period – both in person and around the globe.” The claim was promptly <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2017/01/the-facts-on-crowd-size/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">fact-checked</a> and cast into doubt. Nonetheless, indefatigable Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway defended Spicer on television the next day, claiming he was simply providing “alternative facts.”</p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/3liestruth.jpg" style="height:600px; width:459px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>Alternative facts? Spicer’s numerical claim was either true or false. There was little room for relativism or a multiplicity of facts. To many, Conway’s defense was evocative of the “reality control” of <em>1984</em> “doublethink.”</p> <p> </p> <p>The stubborn persistence of birtherism, climate change denial, rejection of evolutionary theory, the anti-vax movement, and more recently, the belief that 5G technology or Bill Gates is to blame for the coronavirus pandemic all suggest that alternative facts are more than a matter of disingenuous political expediency. Here’s the tragic irony of the post-Web-2.0 information age. Never before has our species enjoyed so much direct access to the plenitude of facts about ourselves and our world – both past and present. And never before have we been as willing to avoid these facts in favour of belief-confirming, gratifying, or convenient fictions. Why?</p> <p> </p> <p>The technological answer is that the proliferation of the internet and the World Wide Web it supports, the reconstitution of social groups into wired social networks, the “produser” explosion of participatory media and user-generated content, the algorithmic personalization of news and information, and the penetration of mobile information and communication technologies have together led to a fragmentation of media audiences into a vast array of homogeneous cultural reproduction circuits.</p> <p> </p> <p>These are the so-called echo chambers, silos, or filter bubbles of the contemporary digital world. Within these separate and self-contained communities, claims about reality are not believed so much according to credentialed, authoritative vetting or provenance. Instead, they are accepted because of the receiver’s relationship to or affinity with those who are sharing or endorsing the claim. Social scientists refer to this as “particularized trust” – which is essentially the faith we place in members of our own tribe, real or virtual. The <a href="https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-2019/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">erosion</a> of trust in authorities and experts over the past half-century has only intensified the epistemic solidarity and insularity of the tribal in-group.</p> <p> </p> <p>The freedom to live in parallel realities defined by “alternative facts” has been put under considerable strain of late by the exigencies of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whereas politicised differences over the causes and consequences of climate change have long persisted because of the remoteness or abstractness of the facts, the immediacy of infection, illness, and death caused by the novel coronavirus ensured that it could not be plausibly denied. The singularity of shared reality returned with a vengeance as we were all reminded of the limits to neoliberal pluralism’s “freedom to believe.” Worse, acting on false beliefs has affected everyone – not just members of our own tribe – in this crisis of globally shared risk by potentially intensifying or prolonging the pandemic.</p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/4liestruth.jpg" style="height:400px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>The forced return to what legal scholar Lawrence Lessig <a href="https://daily.jstor.org/lawrence-lessig-how-to-repair-our-democracy/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">calls</a> the “facts held in common” has affected even those at the very top. President Trump, a man not known for his allegiance to the truth, pivoted sharply from referring to the pandemic and criticism of his response to it as the Democrats’ “new hoax” to describing it as “the worst attack” ever on his country by an “invisible enemy.”</p> <p> </p> <p>Similarly, Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro was initially quick to dismiss COVID-19 as nothing more than a “little flu,” boasting that Brazilians wouldn’t be affected because they already possessed the antibodies to prevent it from spreading. The controverting spike in both cases and deaths in his country eventually forced Bolsonaro to admit that he was “sorry for the situation” and plead that he is not a “miracle worker.”   </p> <p> </p> <p>Heeding a post-truth world of misinformation, disinformation, and parallel realities, the World Health Organization’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus <a href="https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/munich-security-conference" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">warned</a> on February 15 that, “we’re not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous. That’s why we’re also working with search and media companies like Facebook, Google, Pinterest, Tencent, Twitter, TikTok, YouTube and others to counter the spread of rumours and misinformation.”</p> <p> </p> <p>Big tech, for its part, has attempted to rise to the challenge. Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube issued a joint <a href="https://twitter.com/Microsoft/status/1239703041109942272" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">statement</a> in March pledging to combat “fraud and misinformation about the virus” on their platforms and “elevate authoritative content.” In April, Facebook intensified its <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo-update/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">efforts</a> to remove false or misleading information about COVID-19 that could result in “imminent physical harm” and began warning people who may have received it. In May, Twitter announced that it would begin applying warning <a href="https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2020/updating-our-approach-to-misleading-information.html" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">labels</a> to tweets that contain disputed claims about the virus with a “propensity for harm.”</p> <p> </p> <p><img alt="" src="https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/sites/default/files/5liesfakenews.jpg" style="height:400px; width:600px" /></p> <p> </p> <p>The spread of false information continues to hamper the unity of our collective response to the crisis around the world. Conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus, unproven claims of miracle cures or preventions, and myths about its effects and how it is transmitted continue to find sympathetic or susceptible audiences in our highly stratified mediascape. This is especially true for social media networks.</p> <p> </p> <p>According to a <a href="https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/types-sources-and-claims-covid-19-misinformation" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">study</a> by researchers at the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism published in April, 88 percent of instances of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 in their sample appeared on social media platforms, and the remainder on television, news publications, or other websites. This is troubling in a context in which 68 percent of American adults get their news through social media, according to a Pew Research Institute <a href="https://www.journalism.org/2018/09/10/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2018/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">survey</a>.</p> <p> </p> <p>Even so, we should not lose sight of the larger lesson of the pandemic for the post-truth era. Social fragmentation and political polarization in a sea of divisive misinformation has its natural limits. When the jagged edges of a single, shared, global reality start cutting into our lives and cutting short the lives of those we love, and the stubborn facts of an uninvited calamity do not yield to our desire to see things otherwise, we are forced to rediscover that we were standing alongside everyone else all along.</p> <p> </p> <p>“We may call truth that which we cannot change,” wrote Arendt. “It is the ground on which we stand and the sky that stretches above us.” There will be plenty of opportunity for opinionated debate over how best to manage the ravages of the pandemic, as the recent anti-shutdown protests and counter-protests in the U.S. and elsewhere give evidence to. But let the current sobering crisis at least invite us to find common ground with others over the facts that deserve our opinions.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Author Bio:</strong></p> <p><strong><em>Romin W. Tafarodi is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto.</em></strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>For Highbrow Magazine</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Image Sources:</strong></p> <p><em>--GDJ (<a href="https://pixabay.com/vectors/corruption-deceit-deception-2727571/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">Pixabay</a>, Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--Geralt (<a href="https://pixabay.com/illustrations/trump-twitter-bird-chirp-tweet-2372132/" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline">Pixabay</a>, Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--Gage Skidmore (</em><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kellyanne_Conway_2018.jpg" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>Wikimedia.org</em></a><em>, Creative Commons)</em></p> <p><em>--Whitehouse.gov (</em><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/49743000142" style="color:#0563c1; text-decoration:underline"><em>Flickr</em></a><em>, Creative Commons)</em></p> </div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-tags field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/covid-19" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">covid-19</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/coronavirus" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">coronavirus</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/post-truth" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">post-truth</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/fake-news" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">fake news</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/lies" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">lies</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/propoganda" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">propoganda</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/libel" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">libel</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/slander" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">slander</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/kellyanne-conway" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">kellyanne conway</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/sean-spicer" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">sean spicer</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/donald-trump" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Donald Trump</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/china" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">China</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/us-comet-ping-poing" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">u.s. comet ping poing</a></div><div class="field-item odd" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/hillary-clinton" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Hillary Clinton</a></div><div class="field-item even" rel="dc:subject"><a href="/alternate-facts" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">alternate facts</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-author field-type-text field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Romin W. Tafarodi</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-pop field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Popular:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">not popular</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-field-bot field-type-list-boolean field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Bottom Slider:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even">Out Slider</div></div></div> Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:14:10 +0000 tara 9588 at https://www.highbrowmagazine.com https://www.highbrowmagazine.com/10674-post-truth-society-and-covid-pandemic#comments