Theoretical and Empirical Outlines of Understanding Fake News and Disinformation

**3**

over the last two or maybe three decades.

**Chapter 1**

'Infodemic'

**1. Introduction**

*Ján Višňovský and Jana Radošinská*

Introductory Chapter: Journalism

The 21st century once used to be seen as an era when journalism would have to face many new challenges related to digital communication environments; for example, decrease in readership and circulation of the 'traditional press', or digitalisation that would be both user-friendly and progressive. Nevertheless, the third Millennium was also supposed to build a brave new world filled with knowledge, unlimited opportunities and novel, previously unimaginable ways of processing information. As we believe, these anticipations, however accurate and realistic they seemed to appear two decades ago, now need to confront reality. It does not mean that we are hesitant to acknowledge that journalism has, indeed, progressed; we only underline the fact that this confrontation may be important and exciting in terms of academic inquiry, but not entirely pleasant to experience in practice. While talking about what is new in journalism and how we are supposed to reflect on it, a few years ago we used to discuss a plethora of important topics. Most of these issues are still relevant and anything but resolved. Today, mediadisseminated news and opinions outline how we perceive public authorities and international organisations more than ever [1]. There is also so much left to say about how media outlets and individual journalists cover serious social problems such as racial disparities, manifestations of intolerance, or causes of social misrecognition [2]. Technological aspects are equally important as well, since we are not far from the moment when automatised software will be able to replace at least some people working as journalists. The issue of robot journalism is thus becoming increasingly important to address [3, 4]. Moreover, value-based conflicts between different civilisation frameworks have only grown stronger. As noted by Lipovetsky, we are now able to be informed about anything; even the most remote parts of the world may be a part of the global scene. This "airport cosmopolitism" outlines the everyday experience of the globalised world, which is shaped by ecological threats, swift spread of infectious diseases, market mechanisms, spiralling financial crises, migration waves, acts of international terrorism, world events that ignore any boundaries between nation states and continents, and so on [5]. Let us remind ourselves that Lipovetsky wrote this in 2010, i.e., more than a decade ago. Since then, we have learned to accept these phenomena or, at least, we have acknowledged their existence and seriousness. What has made all the difference is the worldwide spread of the highly infectious disease known as COVID-19 (or the novel coronavirus). Our introductory chapter thus aims to explore the new contexts brought by the pandemic, but without forgetting about the problems journalism has been facing

Facing Both Pandemic and

#### **Chapter 1**

## Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic'

*Ján Višňovský and Jana Radošinská*

#### **1. Introduction**

The 21st century once used to be seen as an era when journalism would have to face many new challenges related to digital communication environments; for example, decrease in readership and circulation of the 'traditional press', or digitalisation that would be both user-friendly and progressive. Nevertheless, the third Millennium was also supposed to build a brave new world filled with knowledge, unlimited opportunities and novel, previously unimaginable ways of processing information. As we believe, these anticipations, however accurate and realistic they seemed to appear two decades ago, now need to confront reality. It does not mean that we are hesitant to acknowledge that journalism has, indeed, progressed; we only underline the fact that this confrontation may be important and exciting in terms of academic inquiry, but not entirely pleasant to experience in practice.

While talking about what is new in journalism and how we are supposed to reflect on it, a few years ago we used to discuss a plethora of important topics. Most of these issues are still relevant and anything but resolved. Today, mediadisseminated news and opinions outline how we perceive public authorities and international organisations more than ever [1]. There is also so much left to say about how media outlets and individual journalists cover serious social problems such as racial disparities, manifestations of intolerance, or causes of social misrecognition [2]. Technological aspects are equally important as well, since we are not far from the moment when automatised software will be able to replace at least some people working as journalists. The issue of robot journalism is thus becoming increasingly important to address [3, 4]. Moreover, value-based conflicts between different civilisation frameworks have only grown stronger. As noted by Lipovetsky, we are now able to be informed about anything; even the most remote parts of the world may be a part of the global scene. This "airport cosmopolitism" outlines the everyday experience of the globalised world, which is shaped by ecological threats, swift spread of infectious diseases, market mechanisms, spiralling financial crises, migration waves, acts of international terrorism, world events that ignore any boundaries between nation states and continents, and so on [5]. Let us remind ourselves that Lipovetsky wrote this in 2010, i.e., more than a decade ago. Since then, we have learned to accept these phenomena or, at least, we have acknowledged their existence and seriousness. What has made all the difference is the worldwide spread of the highly infectious disease known as COVID-19 (or the novel coronavirus). Our introductory chapter thus aims to explore the new contexts brought by the pandemic, but without forgetting about the problems journalism has been facing over the last two or maybe three decades.

As 'traditional' journalistic expressions are largely preferred and accessed by middle-aged people and older generations of readers, today's journalism will have to find out how to attract young recipients and, what is even more important, how to fulfil their particular expectations [6]. We may say that anything the media inform us about can be seen as a story. In other words, all pieces of news and opinions are, more or less, driven by their narrative qualities. This is how media audiences establish their parasocial relationships with fictitious or 'everyday' heroes; and this is why we consider media stories to be so attractive and worthy of our attention. However, the moment when the COVID-19 pandemic became a global problem can be seen as a breaking point – suddenly, journalists and other media professionals realised it was necessary to seek new heroes and create new types of stories; all that while trying to process what was happening in a comprehensible manner. Of course, their not-so-professional counterparts, while still making their profit by spreading fake news and disinformation, started to explore the quickly worsening situation in accordance with their own agendas. As a result, a COVID-19 'infodemic' was born.

#### **2. Journalism meeting COVID-19**

If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us clearly that there is a fragile and very blurry boundary between what is systematic and sensible, and what is chaotic, socially pathological and nourished by human fear. Thus, the related 'infodemic' is, according to World Health Organisation (WHO), "too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines the public health response. An infodemic can intensify or lengthen outbreaks when people are unsure about what they need to do to protect their health and the health of people around them". As further noted by WHO, there are no other ways to eliminate this 'infodemic' but four key activities – listening to community concerns and questions; promoting understanding of risk and health expert advice; building resilience to misinformation; and engaging and empowering communities to take positive action [7]. In other words, what we need is to explore new ways to foster participatory culture [8, 9].

Besides taking lives and throwing our public authorities into turmoil, which is deepened by delayed reactions, repeated lockdowns and contradictory decisions, the pandemic has shown that it is not only our bodies and health systems that are vulnerable. Our minds and the values we stand for are in danger as well. Moreover, 'infodemic', this invisible threat, that infects our minds and leaves us both confused and stricken by panic, is often spread across the essential communication space we turn to when we are not exactly sure what is happening around us and how we are supposed to react – the sphere of journalism. Our communication system has been 'infected' by fake news, hoaxes and disinformation, which stand in our way, effectively disabling any attempts to return journalism to where it truly belongs – to the information exchanges saturated by relevant issues, essential public discussions and the idea of progress. Nowadays, it is not rare to encounter harmful social actors such as social media bots, hostile secret services and their intelligence officers, paid trolls, websites spreading fake news that is absolutely convincing and elaborated to the smallest detail, or conspiracy theorists, who intentionally distort other people's worldviews and challenge or openly contradict scientific knowledge. Feeding fake news to people, who may be, in their nature, very suspicious and cautious, and yet so inclined to believe various absurdities, these actors (ab)use online social media

**5**

*Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic'*

specious pieces of news on the COVID-19 global pandemic.

that infects millions of people around the world" [12].

It is only natural that the moment the world was struck by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, social and media discourses started to acknowledge that this unprecedented pandemic walks hand-in-hand with the 'infodemic' built upon disinformation, hoaxes, dangerous half-truths and propaganda. At present, there can be no doubt that the pandemic caused by the coronavirus is the first large media pandemic of the 21st century, which has been, to a large extent, determined by the media themselves. As outlined by Deuze, "it is perhaps also not surprising, from this point of view, that most of the debates and discussions about the pandemic do not just concern the virus and its impact, but focus especially on the roles of expert information provision, news coverage, government communications, and social media. It is clear that the coronavirus pandemic is a mediatized event as much as it is a virus

As expected, one of the first inauthentic pieces of news on COVID-19 was spread via social networking sites. The message claimed that wearing personal protection equipment, such as masks and respirators, slows down our reflexes and cripples our senses due to constantly inhaling one's own exhaled carbon dioxide. Another case can be classified as a conspiracy theory, since the information claimed that the novel coronavirus had been created artificially and purposefully, in Chinese laboratories. Reacting to this rapidly spreading allegation, the United States of America blamed China for creating COVID-19, while, in turn, Russians and Iranians blamed the U.S. Moreover, a number of hoaxes could be identified – for instance, those saying that COVID-19 is spread via 5G networks and can be 'eliminated' by drinking alcoholic beverages; or those claiming that testing for COVID, also called swabbing, as the sample is collected by inserting a swab into a person's nasopharyngeal cavity, is, in fact, a hidden method of infecting (in another version, damaging) the tested person's brain; or those insisting that coronavirus does not exist at all [13]. There are hundreds of different pieces of disinformation and hoaxes related to COVID-19. Their influence is quite obvious if we consider how many people question the ways,

services, once believed to be the greatest achievement in human communication, to actually rob journalism off the most precious, absolutely irreplaceable feature it

In 2017, when Collins English Dictionary picked the term "fake news" as the word of the year, its editors primarily referred to public speeches and social media postings of the (now former) American President Donald Trump, who used this expression excessively, mainly to discredit or otherwise eliminate his political opponents and critics of his administration. Even though "fake news" was nothing new back then, Trump's tendency to label any critical or unfavourable reactions to his tweets as "fake news" certainly made its mark. The phrase started to resonate across all media industries and communication spheres. According to Collins English Dictionary, in 2017, the use of the phrase "fake news" in the media increased by more than 365% – compared to 2016 [10]. However, the situation has escalated since then. The processes of labelling news as 'fake' or, vice versa, insisting that fake news is actually up-to-date and genuine, have become inherent parts of the mainstream media discourse. It does not help that today's media culture is saturated by resourceful (real and fictitious alike) stories about corruption, medical misconducts and arrogance expressed by the rich and powerful. Narratives, which depict various forms of the end of the world and destruction of humanity, or anti-utopic visions of the future, have been excessively popular as well. The formal attributes of creating and presenting these stories are so realistic that media audiences sometimes see them as 'more real' than any objective facts [11]. It may be presumed that the given disorientation and anxiety of media recipients have only become more intense since spring 2020, when the media started to massively disseminate real as well as

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

possesses – people's trust.

#### *Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic' DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

As 'traditional' journalistic expressions are largely preferred and accessed by middle-aged people and older generations of readers, today's journalism will have to find out how to attract young recipients and, what is even more important, how to fulfil their particular expectations [6]. We may say that anything the media inform us about can be seen as a story. In other words, all pieces of news and opinions are, more or less, driven by their narrative qualities. This is how media audiences establish their parasocial relationships with fictitious or 'everyday' heroes; and this is why we consider media stories to be so attractive and worthy of our attention. However, the moment when the COVID-19 pandemic became a global problem can be seen as a breaking point – suddenly, journalists and other media professionals realised it was necessary to seek new heroes and create new types of stories; all that while trying to process what was happening in a comprehensible manner. Of course, their not-so-professional counterparts, while still making their profit by spreading fake news and disinformation, started to explore the quickly worsening situation in accordance with their own agendas. As a result, a COVID-19 'infodemic'

If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown us clearly that there is a fragile and very blurry boundary between what is systematic and sensible, and what is chaotic, socially pathological and nourished by human fear. Thus, the related 'infodemic' is, according to World Health Organisation (WHO), "too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak. It causes confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. It also leads to mistrust in health authorities and undermines the public health response. An infodemic can intensify or lengthen outbreaks when people are unsure about what they need to do to protect their health and the health of people around them". As further noted by WHO, there are no other ways to eliminate this 'infodemic' but four key activities – listening to community concerns and questions; promoting understanding of risk and health expert advice; building resilience to misinformation; and engaging and empowering communities to take positive action [7]. In other words, what we need is to explore new ways to foster participatory

Besides taking lives and throwing our public authorities into turmoil, which is deepened by delayed reactions, repeated lockdowns and contradictory decisions, the pandemic has shown that it is not only our bodies and health systems that are vulnerable. Our minds and the values we stand for are in danger as well. Moreover, 'infodemic', this invisible threat, that infects our minds and leaves us both confused and stricken by panic, is often spread across the essential communication space we turn to when we are not exactly sure what is happening around us and how we are supposed to react – the sphere of journalism. Our communication system has been 'infected' by fake news, hoaxes and disinformation, which stand in our way, effectively disabling any attempts to return journalism to where it truly belongs – to the information exchanges saturated by relevant issues, essential public discussions and the idea of progress. Nowadays, it is not rare to encounter harmful social actors such as social media bots, hostile secret services and their intelligence officers, paid trolls, websites spreading fake news that is absolutely convincing and elaborated to the smallest detail, or conspiracy theorists, who intentionally distort other people's worldviews and challenge or openly contradict scientific knowledge. Feeding fake news to people, who may be, in their nature, very suspicious and cautious, and yet so inclined to believe various absurdities, these actors (ab)use online social media

**4**

was born.

culture [8, 9].

**2. Journalism meeting COVID-19**

services, once believed to be the greatest achievement in human communication, to actually rob journalism off the most precious, absolutely irreplaceable feature it possesses – people's trust.

In 2017, when Collins English Dictionary picked the term "fake news" as the word of the year, its editors primarily referred to public speeches and social media postings of the (now former) American President Donald Trump, who used this expression excessively, mainly to discredit or otherwise eliminate his political opponents and critics of his administration. Even though "fake news" was nothing new back then, Trump's tendency to label any critical or unfavourable reactions to his tweets as "fake news" certainly made its mark. The phrase started to resonate across all media industries and communication spheres. According to Collins English Dictionary, in 2017, the use of the phrase "fake news" in the media increased by more than 365% – compared to 2016 [10]. However, the situation has escalated since then. The processes of labelling news as 'fake' or, vice versa, insisting that fake news is actually up-to-date and genuine, have become inherent parts of the mainstream media discourse. It does not help that today's media culture is saturated by resourceful (real and fictitious alike) stories about corruption, medical misconducts and arrogance expressed by the rich and powerful. Narratives, which depict various forms of the end of the world and destruction of humanity, or anti-utopic visions of the future, have been excessively popular as well. The formal attributes of creating and presenting these stories are so realistic that media audiences sometimes see them as 'more real' than any objective facts [11]. It may be presumed that the given disorientation and anxiety of media recipients have only become more intense since spring 2020, when the media started to massively disseminate real as well as specious pieces of news on the COVID-19 global pandemic.

It is only natural that the moment the world was struck by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, social and media discourses started to acknowledge that this unprecedented pandemic walks hand-in-hand with the 'infodemic' built upon disinformation, hoaxes, dangerous half-truths and propaganda. At present, there can be no doubt that the pandemic caused by the coronavirus is the first large media pandemic of the 21st century, which has been, to a large extent, determined by the media themselves. As outlined by Deuze, "it is perhaps also not surprising, from this point of view, that most of the debates and discussions about the pandemic do not just concern the virus and its impact, but focus especially on the roles of expert information provision, news coverage, government communications, and social media. It is clear that the coronavirus pandemic is a mediatized event as much as it is a virus that infects millions of people around the world" [12].

As expected, one of the first inauthentic pieces of news on COVID-19 was spread via social networking sites. The message claimed that wearing personal protection equipment, such as masks and respirators, slows down our reflexes and cripples our senses due to constantly inhaling one's own exhaled carbon dioxide. Another case can be classified as a conspiracy theory, since the information claimed that the novel coronavirus had been created artificially and purposefully, in Chinese laboratories. Reacting to this rapidly spreading allegation, the United States of America blamed China for creating COVID-19, while, in turn, Russians and Iranians blamed the U.S. Moreover, a number of hoaxes could be identified – for instance, those saying that COVID-19 is spread via 5G networks and can be 'eliminated' by drinking alcoholic beverages; or those claiming that testing for COVID, also called swabbing, as the sample is collected by inserting a swab into a person's nasopharyngeal cavity, is, in fact, a hidden method of infecting (in another version, damaging) the tested person's brain; or those insisting that coronavirus does not exist at all [13]. There are hundreds of different pieces of disinformation and hoaxes related to COVID-19. Their influence is quite obvious if we consider how many people question the ways,

in which vaccines preventing the disease were created, tested and/or approved for emergency use. In Slovakia, the Ministry of Health established its informationbased portal *www.slovenskoproticovidu.sk* very late, in January 2021. The portal's main purpose is to inform the general public about vaccination, its benefits and also possible side effects. The website also introduces publicly known personalities who have decided to participate in Slovakian information campaign related to vaccination, which is titled 'Vaccine Is Freedom' [14]. The presence of various celebrities with good personal reputation, as well as Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová, is starting to strengthen the campaign's initially low reach.

Social media, especially social networking sites, are not only exceptionally efficient tools for spreading disinformation and hoaxes, but also the necessary precondition of their further dissemination across all aspects of social life [15]. Generally, the level of critical thinking and the willingness to verify information from multiple sources are relatively low, making the recipient inclined to trust and disseminate disinformation and conspiracies – whether consciously or unconsciously [16]. According to the survey *Globsec Voices of Central and Eastern Europe* conducted in June 2020, 56% of Slovak citizens believe that disinformation and conspiracy theories are, in fact, genuine news. Slovakia thus reached the worst percentage of all surveyed countries, taking the last place after Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary [17]. During the pandemic, people's interest in online and television news has increased significantly; on the other hand, weaknesses of media organisations have been revealed concurrently. These include incompetence and unprofessionalism in relation to informing about medical topics due to the absence of qualified reporters that would be interested specifically in this area. Moreover, many 'mainstream' media outlets have decided to take the easiest and least demanding route towards increasing their readership; by publishing disinformation and hoaxes, which is now reflected in the above-mentioned decline in the credibility of news as such. According to Digital News Report 2020, published by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, only 28% of respondents living in Slovakia deem news trustworthy, while the trust level fell by 5% compared to 2019 [18]. And this trend was not visible only in case of Slovakia, but also in other European countries.

#### **3. Fighting disinformation and hoaxes**

The first step we need to take in order to eliminate disinformation and other kinds of distorted or fraudulent images of reality is acknowledging that this is a systemic problem. That is why the related issues are addressed by multiple international organisations. The European Commission and its executive bodies, as well as the Member States, are obviously aware of the need to combat disinformation and hoaxes. The European Commission stated that "the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by a massive wave of false and misleading information, attempts by foreign actors to influence domestic debates in the EU, breeding on the fertile ground of people's most basic anxieties and the rapidly changing news cycle. Misleading healthcare information, dangerous hoaxes with false claims conspiracy theories and consumer fraud endanger public health" [19]. In recent years, the European Union institutions have developed several strategic documents that have defined the basic outlines of anti-disinformation activities at the European level, including the documents 'Tackling Online Disinformation: A European Approach' and 'Action Plan against Disinformation'. These are framework documents that have identified specific steps that need to be taken to preserve democratic values in Europe. At the same time, they serve as a starting point for the subsequent creation of strategic documents that would specify how to deal with disinformation, in

**7**

ies of media production and journalistic profession.

more easily [21].

*Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic'*

particular 'The European Democracy Action Plan' and 'The Digital Services Act' [19]. In its joint statement presented on 26th March 2020, The Council of the European Union claimed that "the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an unprecedented challenge for Europe and the whole world. It requires urgent, decisive, and comprehensive action at the EU, national, regional and local levels. We will do everything that is necessary to protect our citizens and overcome the crisis, while preserving our European values and way of life". The declaration contains 22 different statements. The fourth statement declares: "We will resolutely counter disinformation with transparent, timely and fact-based communication on what we are doing and thus reinforce the resilience of our societies" [20]. Considering the facts mentioned above, we may confirm that the European Union has taken the outlined problems quite seriously. However, finding solutions to the identified issues is a

long-term process that will be very hard to go through with successfully.

There is no doubt that modern technologies, which are able to help us with debunking disinformation shared across the Internet, are amongst the most efficient tools for progressive elimination of fake news and disinformation. The European Research Council (ERC) and the Horizon 2020 research strategy recognise several actions, which are supposed to lead us towards better understanding of disinformation circulating online. However, the most difficult challenge to tackle is to develop new, more efficient tools for content verification. The ERC projects Comprop and Botfind thus aim to find out how automated systems for spreading and targeting propaganda impact public discourse in Europe. Another ERC project, Debunker, reflects on the problem of misperceptions around societal issues within the European population and possible strategies to reduce their impact. Moreover, the Horizon 2020 project Invid focuses on developing tools to verify audio-visual content. As it seems, these tools are essential, considering that technologies able to tamper with video and create deepfakes are increasingly easy to access and use. Another Horizon 2020 project, Fandango, seeks solutions that should help 'traditional' media to detect false narratives, that are spread online,

In case of Slovak Republic, a few months ago the government pushed 'The Security Strategy of the Slovak Republic', according to which Slovakia's strategic security interests need to include the readiness of the state and society to respond to hybrid threats (such as disinformation) effectively and in a coordinated manner. Maintaining a functioning cybernetic, information and communication security system is a priority. The strategy thus responds to the general need to address global as well as local security challenges and threats. We may identify a growing number and wider scope of subversive and coercive activities of various actors using disinformation and propaganda in order to disrupt or manipulate decision-making mechanisms within the state, influence public opinion in their favour and destabilise the political situation. The document also acknowledges that the general public is exposed to an increasing amount of disinformation and conspiracy theories that can and will endanger human health, disrupt the cohesion of society or provoke public violence and social unrest. Probably the most significant hybrid activity is manifested by the targeted dissemination of propaganda and disinformation attacking the country's democratic establishment and Slovakia's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the EU. That is why it is absolutely necessary to cope with early identification and evaluation of disinformation, and then respond to it by implementing systemic measures. There is no other way to do so than through the development of critical thinking [22]. Given the used terminology and the manner, in which the document reflects on possible risks emerging within the global communication system, this field of interest reaches far beyond the boundar-

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

#### *Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic' DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

starting to strengthen the campaign's initially low reach.

only in case of Slovakia, but also in other European countries.

The first step we need to take in order to eliminate disinformation and other kinds of distorted or fraudulent images of reality is acknowledging that this is a systemic problem. That is why the related issues are addressed by multiple international organisations. The European Commission and its executive bodies, as well as the Member States, are obviously aware of the need to combat disinformation and hoaxes. The European Commission stated that "the coronavirus pandemic has been accompanied by a massive wave of false and misleading information, attempts by foreign actors to influence domestic debates in the EU, breeding on the fertile ground of people's most basic anxieties and the rapidly changing news cycle. Misleading healthcare information, dangerous hoaxes with false claims conspiracy theories and consumer fraud endanger public health" [19]. In recent years, the European Union institutions have developed several strategic documents that have defined the basic outlines of anti-disinformation activities at the European level, including the documents 'Tackling Online Disinformation: A European Approach' and 'Action Plan against Disinformation'. These are framework documents that have identified specific steps that need to be taken to preserve democratic values in Europe. At the same time, they serve as a starting point for the subsequent creation of strategic documents that would specify how to deal with disinformation, in

**3. Fighting disinformation and hoaxes**

in which vaccines preventing the disease were created, tested and/or approved for emergency use. In Slovakia, the Ministry of Health established its informationbased portal *www.slovenskoproticovidu.sk* very late, in January 2021. The portal's main purpose is to inform the general public about vaccination, its benefits and also possible side effects. The website also introduces publicly known personalities who have decided to participate in Slovakian information campaign related to vaccination, which is titled 'Vaccine Is Freedom' [14]. The presence of various celebrities with good personal reputation, as well as Slovak President Zuzana Čaputová, is

Social media, especially social networking sites, are not only exceptionally efficient tools for spreading disinformation and hoaxes, but also the necessary precondition of their further dissemination across all aspects of social life [15]. Generally, the level of critical thinking and the willingness to verify information from multiple sources are relatively low, making the recipient inclined to trust and disseminate disinformation and conspiracies – whether consciously or unconsciously [16]. According to the survey *Globsec Voices of Central and Eastern Europe* conducted in June 2020, 56% of Slovak citizens believe that disinformation and conspiracy theories are, in fact, genuine news. Slovakia thus reached the worst percentage of all surveyed countries, taking the last place after Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary [17]. During the pandemic, people's interest in online and television news has increased significantly; on the other hand, weaknesses of media organisations have been revealed concurrently. These include incompetence and unprofessionalism in relation to informing about medical topics due to the absence of qualified reporters that would be interested specifically in this area. Moreover, many 'mainstream' media outlets have decided to take the easiest and least demanding route towards increasing their readership; by publishing disinformation and hoaxes, which is now reflected in the above-mentioned decline in the credibility of news as such. According to Digital News Report 2020, published by Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, only 28% of respondents living in Slovakia deem news trustworthy, while the trust level fell by 5% compared to 2019 [18]. And this trend was not visible

**6**

particular 'The European Democracy Action Plan' and 'The Digital Services Act' [19]. In its joint statement presented on 26th March 2020, The Council of the European Union claimed that "the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an unprecedented challenge for Europe and the whole world. It requires urgent, decisive, and comprehensive action at the EU, national, regional and local levels. We will do everything that is necessary to protect our citizens and overcome the crisis, while preserving our European values and way of life". The declaration contains 22 different statements. The fourth statement declares: "We will resolutely counter disinformation with transparent, timely and fact-based communication on what we are doing and thus reinforce the resilience of our societies" [20]. Considering the facts mentioned above, we may confirm that the European Union has taken the outlined problems quite seriously. However, finding solutions to the identified issues is a long-term process that will be very hard to go through with successfully.

There is no doubt that modern technologies, which are able to help us with debunking disinformation shared across the Internet, are amongst the most efficient tools for progressive elimination of fake news and disinformation. The European Research Council (ERC) and the Horizon 2020 research strategy recognise several actions, which are supposed to lead us towards better understanding of disinformation circulating online. However, the most difficult challenge to tackle is to develop new, more efficient tools for content verification. The ERC projects Comprop and Botfind thus aim to find out how automated systems for spreading and targeting propaganda impact public discourse in Europe. Another ERC project, Debunker, reflects on the problem of misperceptions around societal issues within the European population and possible strategies to reduce their impact. Moreover, the Horizon 2020 project Invid focuses on developing tools to verify audio-visual content. As it seems, these tools are essential, considering that technologies able to tamper with video and create deepfakes are increasingly easy to access and use. Another Horizon 2020 project, Fandango, seeks solutions that should help 'traditional' media to detect false narratives, that are spread online, more easily [21].

In case of Slovak Republic, a few months ago the government pushed 'The Security Strategy of the Slovak Republic', according to which Slovakia's strategic security interests need to include the readiness of the state and society to respond to hybrid threats (such as disinformation) effectively and in a coordinated manner. Maintaining a functioning cybernetic, information and communication security system is a priority. The strategy thus responds to the general need to address global as well as local security challenges and threats. We may identify a growing number and wider scope of subversive and coercive activities of various actors using disinformation and propaganda in order to disrupt or manipulate decision-making mechanisms within the state, influence public opinion in their favour and destabilise the political situation. The document also acknowledges that the general public is exposed to an increasing amount of disinformation and conspiracy theories that can and will endanger human health, disrupt the cohesion of society or provoke public violence and social unrest. Probably the most significant hybrid activity is manifested by the targeted dissemination of propaganda and disinformation attacking the country's democratic establishment and Slovakia's membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the EU. That is why it is absolutely necessary to cope with early identification and evaluation of disinformation, and then respond to it by implementing systemic measures. There is no other way to do so than through the development of critical thinking [22]. Given the used terminology and the manner, in which the document reflects on possible risks emerging within the global communication system, this field of interest reaches far beyond the boundaries of media production and journalistic profession.

In April 2020, the analytical department of the Ministry of Defence of the Slovak Republic published an analysis titled 'Infodemic. Disinformation and COVID-19'. The analysis openly admits the information space of the Slovak Republic is prone to the spread of disinformation, conspiracies and fake news [23]. Most of these pathological communication phenomena aim to question the Euro-Atlantic orientation of Slovakia, challenge the European Union's ability to function at all levels and portray various countries, that are ideologically and politically incompatible with the U.S. and its allies, as 'victims' of the evil West. These communication processes are driven by so-called alternative media as well as by some politicians.

#### **4. Conclusion: rebuilding trust in journalism**

Even though our notes on 'infodemic journalism' born in the time of the pandemic are by no means comprehensive and absolute, we believe that we have outlined what needs to change, and why. As remarked by Martinisi and Lugo-Ocando, we might even assert that this 'infodemic' has quickly developed into what they call 'datademic'. Struck by the pandemic, countries all around the world are competing with each other, in an unhealthy manner, on "who has the lower number of deaths and whose ideological and power model is the best to face such a pandemic" [24]. Moreover, today's journalism often depresses people instead of enriching their lives. This loss of trust in the media is further stimulated and deepened by the recipients' perceptions of media bias and the opinion and value polarisation of society. Most audience members tend to relate only to media organisations that disseminate information consistent with their own beliefs; other sources of information providing different views of the same problems are automatically ignored. According to Bell, it is therefore a shocking paradox that the Internet, once considered a miraculous technological tool that can break down the barriers between people, that is able to carry an unprecedented amount of information accessible in a few seconds, does not actually connect people. Instead, digital media drive us to our own corners. In Bell's words which, in the context of the above-mentioned statements, do not seem to be exaggerated at all, one of the most fundamental problems of journalism is its current internal organisation in relation to the recipients: "We have a broken media industry because we have broken the confidence of our audience." [25]. To put it differently, it feels unpleasant to admit that media outlets, both online and offline, unknowingly or willingly, adopt the practices perfected by conspiracy media just because it is economically convenient; just because that is what some of their audiences expect.

The outlined parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and the 'infodemic' tell us that the only true 'cure' is, in both cases, a systemic, long-term strategic plan that would be easy enough to follow and, what is even more important, accepted by media professionals and their audiences alike. This may sound like a *cliché*, but we need to be careful and patient. These problems are so complex, so deeply rooted, that we are simply unable to cover them (let alone, *solve* them) by populist measures, guerrilla marketing strategies or easy action plans. The good news is that the current political situation suggests the pandemic does not 'suit' populists, who have emerged and risen to power in good times, thanks to catchy phrases, strategically flawless online campaigns or the ability to 'ride on the waves' of common people's emotions.

Despite everything, journalism still preserves its capability of being more than just a watchdog of societal progress, more than just a mirror of the late modern society, in which we can clearly see our cynicism, value emptiness and little to no

**9**

**Author details**

Trnava, Slovak Republic

**Acknowledgements**

Political Economy of Media'.

Ján Višňovský\* and Jana Radošinská

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Faculty of Mass Media Communication, University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in

© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

The introductory chapter was elaborated within a national research project supported by the Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences (VEGA) No. 1/0283/20, titled 'Synergy of the Media Industry Segments in the Context of Critical

*Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic'*

empathy, lack of solidarity with the weakest and the most vulnerable. Journalism needs to rebuild its position of a socially and culturally progressive driving force that offers objective and complex information, competent opinions and comprehensible, yet professionally processed analyses. All these pillars need to withstand the pressure of diverse external factors. One of them is the cacophony of critical voices. They mostly belong to media audiences, who are familiar with all technical and technological principles of multiplatform communication, but rarely interested in reconsidering their rigid worldviews. Nevertheless, we believe now is the right time to seek a new way to confront the relentless economic imperatives of the media industry, the pressures of various interest groups, and the essential need to offer quality, adequately processed information and opinions. Based on what we already know about the pandemic and its tragic consequences, perhaps it is not too bold to claim that what journalists publish, and how it is processed, may change much of what we will experience in the near future. The last years have shown that multiplatform journalism might be as progressive as it gets, technologically superior and easy to access, but also vulnerable when it comes to wider social controversies that mistake politics for popularity contests, science for a matter of individual opinion,

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

or truth for something to deny, refuse or distort.

*Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic' DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

empathy, lack of solidarity with the weakest and the most vulnerable. Journalism needs to rebuild its position of a socially and culturally progressive driving force that offers objective and complex information, competent opinions and comprehensible, yet professionally processed analyses. All these pillars need to withstand the pressure of diverse external factors. One of them is the cacophony of critical voices. They mostly belong to media audiences, who are familiar with all technical and technological principles of multiplatform communication, but rarely interested in reconsidering their rigid worldviews. Nevertheless, we believe now is the right time to seek a new way to confront the relentless economic imperatives of the media industry, the pressures of various interest groups, and the essential need to offer quality, adequately processed information and opinions. Based on what we already know about the pandemic and its tragic consequences, perhaps it is not too bold to claim that what journalists publish, and how it is processed, may change much of what we will experience in the near future. The last years have shown that multiplatform journalism might be as progressive as it gets, technologically superior and easy to access, but also vulnerable when it comes to wider social controversies that mistake politics for popularity contests, science for a matter of individual opinion, or truth for something to deny, refuse or distort.

#### **Acknowledgements**

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

**4. Conclusion: rebuilding trust in journalism**

In April 2020, the analytical department of the Ministry of Defence of the Slovak Republic published an analysis titled 'Infodemic. Disinformation and COVID-19'. The analysis openly admits the information space of the Slovak

Republic is prone to the spread of disinformation, conspiracies and fake news [23]. Most of these pathological communication phenomena aim to question the Euro-Atlantic orientation of Slovakia, challenge the European Union's ability to function at all levels and portray various countries, that are ideologically and politically incompatible with the U.S. and its allies, as 'victims' of the evil West. These communication processes are driven by so-called alternative media as well as by some

Even though our notes on 'infodemic journalism' born in the time of the pandemic are by no means comprehensive and absolute, we believe that we have outlined what needs to change, and why. As remarked by Martinisi and Lugo-Ocando, we might even assert that this 'infodemic' has quickly developed into what they call 'datademic'. Struck by the pandemic, countries all around the world are competing with each other, in an unhealthy manner, on "who has the lower number of deaths and whose ideological and power model is the best to face such a pandemic" [24]. Moreover, today's journalism often depresses people instead of enriching their lives. This loss of trust in the media is further stimulated and deepened by the recipients' perceptions of media bias and the opinion and value polarisation of society. Most audience members tend to relate only to media organisations that disseminate information consistent with their own beliefs; other sources of information providing different views of the same problems are automatically ignored. According to Bell, it is therefore a shocking paradox that the Internet, once considered a miraculous technological tool that can break down the barriers between people, that is able to carry an unprecedented amount of information accessible in a few seconds, does not actually connect people. Instead, digital media drive us to our own corners. In Bell's words which, in the context of the above-mentioned statements, do not seem to be exaggerated at all, one of the most fundamental problems of journalism is its current internal organisation in relation to the recipients: "We have a broken media industry because we have broken the confidence of our audience." [25]. To put it differently, it feels unpleasant to admit that media outlets, both online and offline, unknowingly or willingly, adopt the practices perfected by conspiracy media just because it is economically convenient; just because that is what some of their audi-

The outlined parallels between the COVID-19 pandemic and the 'infodemic' tell us that the only true 'cure' is, in both cases, a systemic, long-term strategic plan that would be easy enough to follow and, what is even more important, accepted by media professionals and their audiences alike. This may sound like a *cliché*, but we need to be careful and patient. These problems are so complex, so deeply rooted, that we are simply unable to cover them (let alone, *solve* them) by populist measures, guerrilla marketing strategies or easy action plans. The good news is that the current political situation suggests the pandemic does not 'suit' populists, who have emerged and risen to power in good times, thanks to catchy phrases, strategically flawless online campaigns or the ability to 'ride on the waves' of common people's

Despite everything, journalism still preserves its capability of being more than just a watchdog of societal progress, more than just a mirror of the late modern society, in which we can clearly see our cynicism, value emptiness and little to no

**8**

emotions.

ences expect.

politicians.

The introductory chapter was elaborated within a national research project supported by the Grant Agency of the Ministry of Education, Science, Research and Sport of the Slovak Republic and the Slovak Academy of Sciences (VEGA) No. 1/0283/20, titled 'Synergy of the Media Industry Segments in the Context of Critical Political Economy of Media'.

#### **Author details**

Ján Višňovský\* and Jana Radošinská Faculty of Mass Media Communication, University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, Slovak Republic

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2021 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

### **References**

[1] Greguš Ľ, Kačincová Predmerská A. The foreign news and media image of the European Union in current television news production. Communication Today. 2020;**11**(2): 84-102. s1338-130X

[2] Solík M, Mináriková J. Sociálne uznanie v globálnom priestore: možnosti a limity mediálnej reflexie. Communication Today. 2014;**5**(2):21-31. s1338-130X

[3] Višňovský J, Kubíková, K. Robotická žurnalistika ako výzva pre redakčnú prax. In: Sámelová A, Stanková M, Hacek J, editors. Fenomén 2019: Súčasná Profesionálna Žurnalistika a Jej Reflexie. Bratislava: Comenius University; 2019. pp. 15-22. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>556

[4] Moravec, V et al. The robotic reporter in the Czech News Agency: automated journalism and augmentation in the newsroom. Communication Today. 2020;**11**(1): 36-52. s1338-130X

[5] Lipovetsky, G. Vláda hyperkultury: kosmopolitismus a západní civilizace. In: Lipovetsky, G, Juvin, H, editors. Globalizovaný Západ. Polemika o Planetární Kultuře. 1st ed. Praha: Prostor; 2012. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>650. Chapter 1

[6] Švecová, M. Journalism on social media: how to tell stories and news to young people. AD ALTA: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research. 2017;**7**(2):216-218. s1804-7890

[7] Infodemic [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/healthtopics/infodemic#tab=tab\_1 [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[8] Jenkins H, Ito M, boyd d. Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: A Conversation on Youth, Learning, Commerce, and Politics. 1st Ed.

Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press; 2016. 160p. ISBN: 978-0-7456-6071-4

[9] Škripcová L. Participative culture in community media. European Journal of Media, Art & Photography. 2017;**5**(1):98-101. s1339-4940

[10] Flood A. Fake News Is 'Very Real' Word of the Year for 2017 [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www. theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/02/ fake-news-is-very-real-word-of-theyear-for-2017 [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[11] Radošinská J, Višňovský J. Aktuálne Trendy v Mediálnej Kultúre. 1st ed. Trnava: Faculty of Mass Media Communication UCM; 2013. 154p. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>164

[12] Deuze M. The role of media and mass communication theory in the global pandemic. Communication Today. 2020;**11**(2):4-16. s1338-130X

[13] Kačincová Predmerská A. Koronahoaxy. In: Kvetanová Z, Graca M, editors. Megatrendy a Médiá 2020: On the Edge. 1st ed. Trnava: Faculty of Mass Media Communication UCM; 2020. pp. 46-55. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>635

[14] Slovensko proti COVIDU [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www. slovenskoproticovidu.sk/sk/ [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[15] Kapec M. The media manipulation initiative: it is helpful to clearly differentiate between fake news intended to be satire from hyperpartisan news sites. Media Literacy and Academic Research. 2018;**1**(2):80-82. s2585-8726

[16] Hossová M. Fake news and disinformation: phenomena of postfactual society. Media Literacy and Academic Research. 2018;**1**(2):27-35. s2585-8726

**11**

*Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic'*

[Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://

survey/2017/viewpoint-we-broke-thenews-2017/ [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

www.digitalnewsreport.org/

[25] Martinisi A, Lugo-Ocando J. Statistics and the Quest for Quality Journalism. 1st ed. London/New York: Anthem press; 2020. 206p. ISBN:

9781785275333

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

[17] Hajdu D, Klingová K. Voices of Central and Eastern Europe – Perceptions of Democracy & Governance in 10 EU Countries [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.globsec.org/publications/ voices-of-central-and-eastern-europe/

[18] Smith S. Digital news report 2020. Slovakia [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.digitalnewsreport. org/survey/2020/slovakia-2020/ [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[19] Tackling coronavirus disinformation [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https:// ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/ coronavirus-response/fightingdisinformation/tackling-coronavirusdisinformation\_en [Accessed: April

[20] Joint statement of the Members of the European Council [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.consilium. europa.eu/media/43076/26-vc-eucostatement-en.pdf [Accessed: April

[21] Action Plan against Disinformation [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https:// ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/ eu-communication-disinformationeuco-05122018\_en.pdf [Accessed: April

[22] Bezpečnostná stratégia Slovenskej republiky [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.mosr.sk/data/ files/4263\_210128-bezpecnostnastrategia-sr-2021.pdf [Accessed: April

Dezinformácie a COVID-19 [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www. mosr.sk/data/files/4005\_2020-k-01 infodemia-new.pdf [Accessed: April

[24] Bell M. Viewpoint: We Broke the News Media, How Can We Fix Them?

[23] Štepanovič D. Infodémia.

[Accessed: April 22, 2021]

22, 2021]

22, 2021]

22, 2021]

22, 2021]

22, 2021]

*Introductory Chapter: Journalism Facing Both Pandemic and 'Infodemic' DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98263*

[17] Hajdu D, Klingová K. Voices of Central and Eastern Europe – Perceptions of Democracy & Governance in 10 EU Countries [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.globsec.org/publications/ voices-of-central-and-eastern-europe/ [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[18] Smith S. Digital news report 2020. Slovakia [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.digitalnewsreport. org/survey/2020/slovakia-2020/ [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[19] Tackling coronavirus disinformation [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https:// ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/ coronavirus-response/fightingdisinformation/tackling-coronavirusdisinformation\_en [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[20] Joint statement of the Members of the European Council [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.consilium. europa.eu/media/43076/26-vc-eucostatement-en.pdf [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[21] Action Plan against Disinformation [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https:// ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/ eu-communication-disinformationeuco-05122018\_en.pdf [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[22] Bezpečnostná stratégia Slovenskej republiky [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.mosr.sk/data/ files/4263\_210128-bezpecnostnastrategia-sr-2021.pdf [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[23] Štepanovič D. Infodémia. Dezinformácie a COVID-19 [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www. mosr.sk/data/files/4005\_2020-k-01 infodemia-new.pdf [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[24] Bell M. Viewpoint: We Broke the News Media, How Can We Fix Them? [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http:// www.digitalnewsreport.org/ survey/2017/viewpoint-we-broke-thenews-2017/ [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[25] Martinisi A, Lugo-Ocando J. Statistics and the Quest for Quality Journalism. 1st ed. London/New York: Anthem press; 2020. 206p. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>333

**10**

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

Cambridge/Malden: Polity Press; 2016.

[9] Škripcová L. Participative culture in community media. European Journal of

[10] Flood A. Fake News Is 'Very Real' Word of the Year for 2017 [Internet]. 2017. Available from: https://www. theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/02/ fake-news-is-very-real-word-of-theyear-for-2017 [Accessed: April 22, 2021]

[11] Radošinská J, Višňovský J. Aktuálne Trendy v Mediálnej Kultúre. 1st ed. Trnava: Faculty of Mass Media Communication UCM; 2013. 154p.

[12] Deuze M. The role of media and mass communication theory in the global pandemic. Communication Today. 2020;**11**(2):4-16. s1338-130X

Koronahoaxy. In: Kvetanová Z, Graca M, editors. Megatrendy a Médiá 2020: On the Edge. 1st ed. Trnava: Faculty of Mass Media Communication UCM; 2020. pp.

[14] Slovensko proti COVIDU [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www. slovenskoproticovidu.sk/sk/ [Accessed:

[15] Kapec M. The media manipulation initiative: it is helpful to clearly differentiate between fake news intended to be satire from hyperpartisan news sites. Media Literacy and Academic Research. 2018;**1**(2):80-82.

[16] Hossová M. Fake news and disinformation: phenomena of postfactual society. Media Literacy and Academic Research. 2018;**1**(2):27-35.

[13] Kačincová Predmerská A.

46-55. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>635

April 22, 2021]

s2585-8726

s2585-8726

160p. ISBN: 978-0-7456-6071-4

Media, Art & Photography. 2017;**5**(1):98-101. s1339-4940

ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>164

[1] Greguš Ľ, Kačincová Predmerská A. The foreign news and media image of the European Union in current television news production. Communication Today. 2020;**11**(2):

[2] Solík M, Mináriková J. Sociálne uznanie v globálnom priestore: možnosti a limity mediálnej reflexie. Communication Today. 2014;**5**(2):21-31.

[3] Višňovský J, Kubíková, K. Robotická žurnalistika ako výzva pre redakčnú prax. In: Sámelová A, Stanková M, Hacek J, editors. Fenomén 2019: Súčasná Profesionálna Žurnalistika a Jej Reflexie. Bratislava: Comenius University; 2019. pp. 15-22. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>556

[4] Moravec, V et al. The robotic reporter in the Czech News Agency:

[5] Lipovetsky, G. Vláda hyperkultury: kosmopolitismus a západní civilizace. In: Lipovetsky, G, Juvin, H, editors. Globalizovaný Západ. Polemika o Planetární Kultuře. 1st ed. Praha: Prostor; 2012. ISBN:<PHONE_NUMBER>650.

[6] Švecová, M. Journalism on social media: how to tell stories and news to young people. AD ALTA: Journal of

[7] Infodemic [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/healthtopics/infodemic#tab=tab\_1 [Accessed:

Participatory Culture in a Networked Era: A Conversation on Youth, Learning,

Interdisciplinary Research. 2017;**7**(2):216-218. s1804-7890

[8] Jenkins H, Ito M, boyd d.

Commerce, and Politics. 1st Ed.

automated journalism and augmentation in the newsroom. Communication Today. 2020;**11**(1):

36-52. s1338-130X

Chapter 1

April 22, 2021]

84-102. s1338-130X

**References**

s1338-130X

**13**

**Chapter 2**

**Abstract**

*Thomas J. Froehlich*

A Disinformation-Misinformation

Ecology: The Case of Trump

This paper lays out many of the factors that make disinformation or misinformation campaigns of Trump successful.  Yet his approval rating tends to remain at 40%. Why do rational assessments of his presidency fail to have any traction? This paper looks at the conflation of knowledge and beliefs in partisan minds, how beliefs lead to self-deception and social self-deception and how they reinforce one another. It then looks at psychological factors, conscious and unconscious, that predispose partisans to pursue partisan sources of information and reject non-partisan sources. It then explains how these factors sustain the variety and motivations of Trump supporters' commitment to Trump. The role of cognitive authorities like *Fox News* and right-wing social media sites are examined to show how the power of these media sources escalates and reinforces partisan views and the rejection of other cognitive authorities. These cognitive authorities also use emotional triggers to inflame Trump supporters, keeping them addicted by feeding their anger, resentment, or self-righteousness. The paper concludes by discussing the dynamics of the Trump disinformation-

misinformation ecology, creating an Age of Inflamed Grievances.

media, self-deception, social self-deception

continuation in office, and promote his reelection.

**1. Introduction**

**Keywords:** Trumpism, disinformation, cognitive authority, *Fox News*, social media, propaganda, inflamed grievances, psychology of disinformation, Donald Trump,

This paper investigates how disinformation-misinformation campaigns, particularly in the political arena, succeed and why they are so hard to challenge, defeat, or deflect. In order to address this topic, the research here draws on many fields: information studies, psychology, philosophy, communication studies, and media studies, among others. The examples studied here are the disinformation campaigns that made Donald Trump the United States president, sustain his

Disinformation occurs when the originator of the information intends to deceive. Misinformation need not involve intent; it is merely false. The problem is that in many cases it is not clear whether it is one or the other because of an ambiguous context or questions as to whether misinformation is being used in the service of disinformation (e.g., fake cures for the coronavirus). The use of the hyphenated terms underscores their interaction for this paper. By any measure, much of the rhetoric supporting Donald Trump is disinformation. By any moral

#### **Chapter 2**

## A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump

*Thomas J. Froehlich*

#### **Abstract**

This paper lays out many of the factors that make disinformation or misinformation campaigns of Trump successful.  Yet his approval rating tends to remain at 40%. Why do rational assessments of his presidency fail to have any traction? This paper looks at the conflation of knowledge and beliefs in partisan minds, how beliefs lead to self-deception and social self-deception and how they reinforce one another. It then looks at psychological factors, conscious and unconscious, that predispose partisans to pursue partisan sources of information and reject non-partisan sources. It then explains how these factors sustain the variety and motivations of Trump supporters' commitment to Trump. The role of cognitive authorities like *Fox News* and right-wing social media sites are examined to show how the power of these media sources escalates and reinforces partisan views and the rejection of other cognitive authorities. These cognitive authorities also use emotional triggers to inflame Trump supporters, keeping them addicted by feeding their anger, resentment, or self-righteousness. The paper concludes by discussing the dynamics of the Trump disinformationmisinformation ecology, creating an Age of Inflamed Grievances.

**Keywords:** Trumpism, disinformation, cognitive authority, *Fox News*, social media, propaganda, inflamed grievances, psychology of disinformation, Donald Trump, media, self-deception, social self-deception

#### **1. Introduction**

This paper investigates how disinformation-misinformation campaigns, particularly in the political arena, succeed and why they are so hard to challenge, defeat, or deflect. In order to address this topic, the research here draws on many fields: information studies, psychology, philosophy, communication studies, and media studies, among others. The examples studied here are the disinformation campaigns that made Donald Trump the United States president, sustain his continuation in office, and promote his reelection.

Disinformation occurs when the originator of the information intends to deceive. Misinformation need not involve intent; it is merely false. The problem is that in many cases it is not clear whether it is one or the other because of an ambiguous context or questions as to whether misinformation is being used in the service of disinformation (e.g., fake cures for the coronavirus). The use of the hyphenated terms underscores their interaction for this paper. By any measure, much of the rhetoric supporting Donald Trump is disinformation.  Trump and his enablers, the Republican Party, his administration, his news channels and media, and his supporters are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans due to incompetent management of the coronavirus pandemic, the collapse of American democratic norms and the rule of law, and the cruel treatment of immigrants, just to name some of the most prominent failures. In an academic paper, the author is typically enjoined from making such an assessment, but rational people, scientists, political leaders, psychologists, and experts of many shades (many from the president's own party) concur with this evaluation. Trustworthy, evidence-based sources establish broad consensus among all but Republican officials and the president's electoral base. For example, there are articles that discuss Trump's character and authoritarian tendencies [1, 2], his continuous lying [3], his unaccomplished promises [4, 5], his impeachment (almost all Democrats and some Republicans believed that he was guilty), and his use of the Federal government to cover his crimes [6], to name a few.

The QAnon conspiracy theory is perhaps the most extreme disinformation campaign supporting Donald Trump's reelection. The theory claims that Democrats, all of Hollywood, and other liberal elites are involved in the sex-trafficking of children and murder of children to extend the life of the elites, who have found a way to brew the fountain of youth from the blood of innocents. Trump is the Messiah who fights the so-called "deep state" (a clandestine network entrenched inside the government, bureaucracy, intelligence agencies, and other governmental entities, who secretly manipulate government and government policy). He alone can be trusted. All of his opponents, Democrats and Republicans, are complicit in years of wrongdoing. Redemption will come with a military takeover and mass arrests of the guilty parties. According to the theory, Donald Trump is defending the country from these elites and non-Christians (America is a Christian nation) from this deepstate conspiracy. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is a deep state plant, and hydroxychloroquine, which the president hyped as a treatment and preventative of COVID-19, a claim that scientists have debunked, is the key to addressing the pandemic [7]. When Trump made an error in one of his tweets, by typing 'covfefe' instead of 'coverage,' his fans thought it was a secret Arabic message [8]. One researcher believes that the codes that QAnon sees in Trump's tweets are just random typing [9]. Anyone capable of critical thought would realize that such notions are riddled with inconsistencies and unrealistic and impossible goals. Yet a Republican candidate for Congress, Margorie Greene, who espouses the conspiracy theories, won her primary and, given the gerrymandering of her district, is likely to become a member of Congress [10]. There is evidence that adherents of QAnon theory are rapidly increasing around the world [11].

How did we arrive at this state of affairs, where the most outrageous notions are not only entertained but flaunted in the public sphere? Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" [12], 514a-520d, (and "Metaphor of the Line" [12], 509d-511e) come to mind. In it, Socrates describes prisoners who have lived in a dark cave since birth, never seeing the light of day. They are physically constrained in such a way that they cannot look to either side or behind them.  Various objects are lifted into the air, manipulated by another group of people who are out of sight behind the wall. The fire casts shadows of the objects across the wall facing the prisoners. The prisoners watch the sequences that the shadows play out and play games predicting the sequences and sounds that reverberate in the cave. When they refer to one of the shadows as a "cup, "for example, they do not actually see a cup, but rather the shadow of a cup, confusing its shadowy

**15**

sources?

Trump's America [13–15].

knows about the issue at hand.

*A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump*

where perception reflects the actual sensible world.

**2. Knowledge, beliefs and second-hand knowledge**

appearance with actual reality. The prisoners are coached (by someone like a Socrates) to leave the cave because they believe that their imaginary reality is true reality, and any alternate reality must be false. Trump's supporters seem to reside in a cave of disinformation, and even if they are challenged to move to the outside (by someone like a Socrates), they want to return and mock those who left, insisting that their fake world is the only true one. Their cognitive state is that of imagining (in Greek, eikasia), a state in which what they believe is reality, and contrary views are "fake news." In Plato's view, this state is inferior to that of belief or opinion

Why do we have such willing contemporary cave-dwellers? Why are disinformation campaigns successful? The evidence against them is available at our fingertips on the internet, if we search to find reliable resources. Yet just as accessible is the content for defenders, rationalizers, and promoters of lies. How can people not only swallow an outrageous version of reality but also endorse it, propagate it, and refuse to acknowledge any intervening evidence, no matter its source, its credibility, or wide acceptance, and find evidence for their claims in the most tenuous of biased

In order to develop a complete picture of this disinformation-misinformation ecology, the next sections review previous research and publications that will provide a foundation for this paper's exploration of the success of disinformation in

Any discussion of disinformation must acknowledge the distinction between knowledge and beliefs, between what we can know for sure, either based on direct experience or solid research, and beliefs, which may be turned into truth, shown to be false, or are matters of individual preferences [16]. Because we do not and cannot have knowledge about everything, we often rely on secondhand knowledge that we acquire from others to help us navigate life, such as advice from parents, teachers, and experienced persons about what sources to use to solve a problem or how to sort out political opinions. This secondhand knowledge is derived from persons that we come to regard as cognitive authorities. A cognitive authority is a person, organization, media source, group, or leader whose information one takes as secondhand knowledge based on that entity's credibility, trustworthiness, and expertise. Persons and news institutions can act as cognitive authorities. The opinions cognitive authorities espouse can be true, false, or a matter of taste: true, if verifiable; false, if falsifiable or unverifiable; or a matter of taste, if based on one's tastes or preferences, being neither true nor false. Secondhand knowledge that is derived from cognitive authority, thus, for the advice seekers, is an opinion, and certainty varies based on the degree to which they trust their cognitive authorities. This trust grows as the secondhand knowledge is confirmed. It converts from pure opinion to knowledge as the holder gains experience with the topic and with the trustworthiness of the cognitive authority. One can have high certainty about their cognitive authorities, and yet it may be misplaced if the "knowledge" they pass on is not founded on reason, evidence, logic, or facts, or does not cohere with what one

Consumers of information sources may tend to assume that their opinions are knowledge when they are, at best, secondhand knowledge or, at worst, false opinion(s). For example, consumers of partisan news coverage may believe the claimed authority of the source indicates they have received knowledge and may thus act or talk in such a way that purports what they hear or see is deemed

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95000*

#### *A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95000*

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

or political standard, he is unfit for office, a compulsive liar, incompetent, arrogant, corrupt, ignorant, criminal, mean, petty, and narcissistic. Trump and his enablers, the Republican Party, his administration, his news channels and media, and his supporters are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans due to incompetent management of the coronavirus pandemic, the collapse of American democratic norms and the rule of law, and the cruel treatment of immigrants, just to name some of the most prominent failures. In an academic paper, the author is typically enjoined from making such an assessment, but rational people, scientists, political leaders, psychologists, and experts of many shades (many from the president's own party) concur with this evaluation. Trustworthy, evidence-based sources establish broad consensus among all but Republican officials and the president's electoral base. For example, there are articles that discuss Trump's character and authoritarian tendencies [1, 2], his continuous lying [3], his unaccomplished promises [4, 5], his impeachment (almost all Democrats and some Republicans believed that he was guilty), and his use of the Federal government to cover his crimes [6], to

The QAnon conspiracy theory is perhaps the most extreme disinformation campaign supporting Donald Trump's reelection. The theory claims that Democrats, all of Hollywood, and other liberal elites are involved in the sex-trafficking of children and murder of children to extend the life of the elites, who have found a way to brew the fountain of youth from the blood of innocents. Trump is the Messiah who fights the so-called "deep state" (a clandestine network entrenched inside the government, bureaucracy, intelligence agencies, and other governmental entities, who secretly manipulate government and government policy). He alone can be trusted. All of his opponents, Democrats and Republicans, are complicit in years of wrongdoing. Redemption will come with a military takeover and mass arrests of the guilty parties. According to the theory, Donald Trump is defending the country from these elites and non-Christians (America is a Christian nation) from this deepstate conspiracy. The director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, is a deep state plant, and hydroxychloroquine, which the president hyped as a treatment and preventative of COVID-19, a claim that scientists have debunked, is the key to addressing the pandemic [7]. When Trump made an error in one of his tweets, by typing 'covfefe' instead of 'coverage,' his fans thought it was a secret Arabic message [8]. One researcher believes that the codes that QAnon sees in Trump's tweets are just random typing [9]. Anyone capable of critical thought would realize that such notions are riddled with inconsistencies and unrealistic and impossible goals. Yet a Republican candidate for Congress, Margorie Greene, who espouses the conspiracy theories, won her primary and, given the gerrymandering of her district, is likely to become a member of Congress [10]. There is evidence that adherents of QAnon theory are rapidly increasing around the

How did we arrive at this state of affairs, where the most outrageous notions are not only entertained but flaunted in the public sphere? Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" [12], 514a-520d, (and "Metaphor of the Line" [12], 509d-511e) come to mind. In it, Socrates describes prisoners who have lived in a dark cave since birth, never seeing the light of day. They are physically constrained in such a way that they cannot look to either side or behind them.  Various objects are lifted into the air, manipulated by another group of people who are out of sight behind the wall. The fire casts shadows of the objects across the wall facing the prisoners. The prisoners watch the sequences that the shadows play out and play games predicting the sequences and sounds that reverberate in the cave. When they refer to one of the shadows as a "cup, "for example, they do not actually see a cup, but rather the shadow of a cup, confusing its shadowy

**14**

world [11].

name a few.

appearance with actual reality. The prisoners are coached (by someone like a Socrates) to leave the cave because they believe that their imaginary reality is true reality, and any alternate reality must be false. Trump's supporters seem to reside in a cave of disinformation, and even if they are challenged to move to the outside (by someone like a Socrates), they want to return and mock those who left, insisting that their fake world is the only true one. Their cognitive state is that of imagining (in Greek, eikasia), a state in which what they believe is reality, and contrary views are "fake news." In Plato's view, this state is inferior to that of belief or opinion where perception reflects the actual sensible world.

Why do we have such willing contemporary cave-dwellers? Why are disinformation campaigns successful? The evidence against them is available at our fingertips on the internet, if we search to find reliable resources. Yet just as accessible is the content for defenders, rationalizers, and promoters of lies. How can people not only swallow an outrageous version of reality but also endorse it, propagate it, and refuse to acknowledge any intervening evidence, no matter its source, its credibility, or wide acceptance, and find evidence for their claims in the most tenuous of biased sources?

In order to develop a complete picture of this disinformation-misinformation ecology, the next sections review previous research and publications that will provide a foundation for this paper's exploration of the success of disinformation in Trump's America [13–15].

#### **2. Knowledge, beliefs and second-hand knowledge**

Any discussion of disinformation must acknowledge the distinction between knowledge and beliefs, between what we can know for sure, either based on direct experience or solid research, and beliefs, which may be turned into truth, shown to be false, or are matters of individual preferences [16]. Because we do not and cannot have knowledge about everything, we often rely on secondhand knowledge that we acquire from others to help us navigate life, such as advice from parents, teachers, and experienced persons about what sources to use to solve a problem or how to sort out political opinions. This secondhand knowledge is derived from persons that we come to regard as cognitive authorities. A cognitive authority is a person, organization, media source, group, or leader whose information one takes as secondhand knowledge based on that entity's credibility, trustworthiness, and expertise. Persons and news institutions can act as cognitive authorities. The opinions cognitive authorities espouse can be true, false, or a matter of taste: true, if verifiable; false, if falsifiable or unverifiable; or a matter of taste, if based on one's tastes or preferences, being neither true nor false. Secondhand knowledge that is derived from cognitive authority, thus, for the advice seekers, is an opinion, and certainty varies based on the degree to which they trust their cognitive authorities. This trust grows as the secondhand knowledge is confirmed. It converts from pure opinion to knowledge as the holder gains experience with the topic and with the trustworthiness of the cognitive authority. One can have high certainty about their cognitive authorities, and yet it may be misplaced if the "knowledge" they pass on is not founded on reason, evidence, logic, or facts, or does not cohere with what one knows about the issue at hand.

Consumers of information sources may tend to assume that their opinions are knowledge when they are, at best, secondhand knowledge or, at worst, false opinion(s). For example, consumers of partisan news coverage may believe the claimed authority of the source indicates they have received knowledge and may thus act or talk in such a way that purports what they hear or see is deemed knowledge. Unfortunately, such "knowledge" is unstable if the consumers cannot provide a rationale for what they believe. Many people are mistaken about whether they have knowledge at all and may believe that opinion or disinformation is knowledge. Sources the hearer takes for cognitive authorities can be mistaken or deceitful. At the same time, life would be impossible if we could not act on information we were unable to verify. We proceed in our lives with lots of secondhand knowledge, relying on others, whose advice most often is justified but sometimes is not. To make this difficult issue more manageable, we trust in cognitive authorities.

Deception by cognitive authorities can take various forms. Drawing on Chisholm and Feehan's "The Intent to Deceive" [17] (1977, pp. 144–145), Don Fallis's "The Varieties of Disinformation" (2014) [18] describes four major types. The first two are achieved by positive deception (causing a false belief). They include (1) creating a new false belief (e.g., Trump claims that absentee balloting is prone to electoral fraud) and (2) maintaining an existing false belief (e.g., if Joe Biden becomes president, he would take away all guns from citizens). The other two use negative deception. They are (1) causing the loss of a true belief (e.g., that mail-in or absentee ballot voting is a reliable way to vote) and (2) preventing the acquisition of a true belief (e.g., preventing accurate information about the COVID-19 pandemic; ([18], p. 140). (For a more detailed explanation, see [13–15].)

#### **3. Self-deception, social self-deception and collective self-deception**

Deception is most effective when it fosters self-deception. Sartre observed that bad faith is believing what you do not believe: holding or living a contradiction at one and the same time [16]. He describes a mode of living inauthentically, where people may deceive themselves into thinking that they do not have the freedom to make choices for fear of their potential consequences, e.g., that they would have to be responsible for themselves. The psychological position of "willful ignorance" may be related to this condition, knowing something to be true but consciously choosing ignorance, e.g., choosing to believe that the Confederate statues are not symbols of racism.

Self-deception may be a way to embrace forms of ignorance or false information, including lies, paltering, fake news, or doxing. Self-deception makes it possible to maintain our beliefs in the face of contravening evidence. Von Hippel and Trivers [19] describes five varieties of self-deception: (a) biased information search (i.e., only consulting sources that validate our biases or a priori beliefs); (b) biased interpretation (i.e., ignoring parts of a story that do not fit our views); (c) misremembering (e.g., as some Trump supporters who voted for and approved of Barack Obama have come to rationalize Trump's depiction of him as incompetent); (d) rationalization (i.e., making our arguments fit our biases, such as accepting that immigrants are largely criminals because Trump says so); and (e) convincing oneself that a lie is true (e.g., that Barack Obama had spied on the Trump campaign in 2016).

Self-deception is a socializing and socialized strategy. We convince ourselves of our false beliefs in the process of persuading others, and if and when they are convinced it confirms and sustains our false beliefs. Roy Dings [20], pp. 17–18, points out that this social self-deception may be "situating" or "persuasive." The first, "situating," includes the positive, in which we seek likeminded people with whom to associate, and the second is the negative, in which we avoid people who disagree with our views. The second, "persuasive," includes the positive, trying to convince people to adopt our views, and negative, withholding information that would deter a person from such adoptions [20], pp. 17–18. These strategies are common

**17**

*A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump*

among political supporters of various stripes, but appear to be particularly common among Trump supporters, who reject any talking points except those in their disinformation ecosystem. Social, or reciprocal, self-deception leads to collective self-deception where a whole group feeds and is fed self-deception. The individual, the group, and the collective dialectically reinforce each other. For example, Trump supporters who are not necessarily homogeneous in how or why they arrived in support of Trump (as we will see later) embrace the common end—that Trumps represents their anger, resentments, a source of power, economic advantage, selfrighteousness, or their cause, whatever it may be. (For a more detailed explanation,

There are psychological factors and motivations that set and enforce selfdeception [16]. The elements may be conscious or unconscious. Conscious selfdeception strategies include willful ignorance mentioned above or the avoidance of information.  Willful ignorance (being more conscious) is, therefore, more culpable than self-deception. Information avoidance is not thought to be the same as willful ignorance and may not be the same as self-deception. According to Lynch [22], information avoidance is "any behavior intended to prevent or delay the acquisition of available but potentially unwanted information" [22], p. 341. Reasons for information avoidance include the information may demand a change in one's beliefs, an undesired action, or the information itself, or the decision to learn information may cause unpleasant emotions or diminish pleasant emotions [22], p. 342. Information avoidance can be a strategy for abiding and remaining in a disinformation or misinformation

Part of the problem of dealing with persons imbued with espousing or promoting fake news is that if one tries to approach them rationally with evidence, facts, and logic, one will fail (though there are many cases, as we will note later, in which what they may count as evidence, facts, or logic do not fit orthodox norms). In addition to the relatively conscious factors listed above, there are unconscious ones as well. There are many psychological factors at play that enable the success of vari-

We may be prone to think that what we pay attention to is neutral, as if no bias dictates how we bestow our attention. We are predisposed to hear, see, absorb, and interpret particular things that fit with our biases. In phenomenological terms, our unconscious biases might be understood as a "pre-understanding." Key concepts

J.P. Forgas and R.F. Baumeister [23] summarize the growing literature on the social psychology of gullibility, going back as far as 1947. They define gullibility as "a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action" [23], p. 2. Gullibility occurs when "an individual's beliefs are manifestly inconsistent with facts and reality, or [they] are at variance with social norms about reality" [23], p. 2. The psychological foundation of gullibility "appears to be the universal human capacity for trust – to accept second-hand information we receive from others as a proxy for reality" [23], p. 5. They identify six psychological mechanisms of gullibility: (1) The search for patterns and meaning: because human beings want to make sense of reality, they

ous forms of self-deception, where rational arguments do not work.

that flesh out this notion are gullibility and cognitive bias.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95000*

**4. Psychological dimensions**

see [16]).

ecology.

*A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95000*

among political supporters of various stripes, but appear to be particularly common among Trump supporters, who reject any talking points except those in their disinformation ecosystem. Social, or reciprocal, self-deception leads to collective self-deception where a whole group feeds and is fed self-deception. The individual, the group, and the collective dialectically reinforce each other. For example, Trump supporters who are not necessarily homogeneous in how or why they arrived in support of Trump (as we will see later) embrace the common end—that Trumps represents their anger, resentments, a source of power, economic advantage, selfrighteousness, or their cause, whatever it may be. (For a more detailed explanation, see [16]).

#### **4. Psychological dimensions**

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

knowledge. Unfortunately, such "knowledge" is unstable if the consumers cannot provide a rationale for what they believe. Many people are mistaken about whether they have knowledge at all and may believe that opinion or disinformation is knowledge. Sources the hearer takes for cognitive authorities can be mistaken or deceitful. At the same time, life would be impossible if we could not act on information we were unable to verify. We proceed in our lives with lots of secondhand knowledge, relying on others, whose advice most often is justified but sometimes is not. To make this difficult issue more manageable, we trust in cognitive authorities.

Deception by cognitive authorities can take various forms. Drawing on Chisholm

and Feehan's "The Intent to Deceive" [17] (1977, pp. 144–145), Don Fallis's "The Varieties of Disinformation" (2014) [18] describes four major types. The first two are achieved by positive deception (causing a false belief). They include (1) creating a new false belief (e.g., Trump claims that absentee balloting is prone to electoral fraud) and (2) maintaining an existing false belief (e.g., if Joe Biden becomes president, he would take away all guns from citizens). The other two use negative deception. They are (1) causing the loss of a true belief (e.g., that mail-in or absentee ballot voting is a reliable way to vote) and (2) preventing the acquisition of a true belief (e.g., preventing accurate information about the COVID-19 pandemic;

**3. Self-deception, social self-deception and collective self-deception**

Deception is most effective when it fosters self-deception. Sartre observed that bad faith is believing what you do not believe: holding or living a contradiction at one and the same time [16]. He describes a mode of living inauthentically, where people may deceive themselves into thinking that they do not have the freedom to make choices for fear of their potential consequences, e.g., that they would have to be responsible for themselves. The psychological position of "willful ignorance" may be related to this condition, knowing something to be true but consciously choosing ignorance, e.g., choosing to believe that the Confederate statues are not

Self-deception may be a way to embrace forms of ignorance or false information, including lies, paltering, fake news, or doxing. Self-deception makes it possible to maintain our beliefs in the face of contravening evidence. Von Hippel and Trivers [19] describes five varieties of self-deception: (a) biased information search (i.e., only consulting sources that validate our biases or a priori beliefs); (b) biased interpretation (i.e., ignoring parts of a story that do not fit our views); (c) misremembering (e.g., as some Trump supporters who voted for and approved of Barack Obama have come to rationalize Trump's depiction of him as incompetent); (d) rationalization (i.e., making our arguments fit our biases, such as accepting that immigrants are largely criminals because Trump says so); and (e) convincing oneself that a lie is true (e.g., that Barack Obama had spied on the

Self-deception is a socializing and socialized strategy. We convince ourselves of our false beliefs in the process of persuading others, and if and when they are convinced it confirms and sustains our false beliefs. Roy Dings [20], pp. 17–18, points out that this social self-deception may be "situating" or "persuasive." The first, "situating," includes the positive, in which we seek likeminded people with whom to associate, and the second is the negative, in which we avoid people who disagree with our views. The second, "persuasive," includes the positive, trying to convince people to adopt our views, and negative, withholding information that would deter a person from such adoptions [20], pp. 17–18. These strategies are common

([18], p. 140). (For a more detailed explanation, see [13–15].)

**16**

symbols of racism.

Trump campaign in 2016).

There are psychological factors and motivations that set and enforce selfdeception [16]. The elements may be conscious or unconscious. Conscious selfdeception strategies include willful ignorance mentioned above or the avoidance of information.  Willful ignorance (being more conscious) is, therefore, more culpable than self-deception. Information avoidance is not thought to be the same as willful ignorance and may not be the same as self-deception. According to Lynch [22], information avoidance is "any behavior intended to prevent or delay the acquisition of available but potentially unwanted information" [22], p. 341. Reasons for information avoidance include the information may demand a change in one's beliefs, an undesired action, or the information itself, or the decision to learn information may cause unpleasant emotions or diminish pleasant emotions [22], p. 342. Information avoidance can be a strategy for abiding and remaining in a disinformation or misinformation ecology.

Part of the problem of dealing with persons imbued with espousing or promoting fake news is that if one tries to approach them rationally with evidence, facts, and logic, one will fail (though there are many cases, as we will note later, in which what they may count as evidence, facts, or logic do not fit orthodox norms). In addition to the relatively conscious factors listed above, there are unconscious ones as well. There are many psychological factors at play that enable the success of various forms of self-deception, where rational arguments do not work.

We may be prone to think that what we pay attention to is neutral, as if no bias dictates how we bestow our attention. We are predisposed to hear, see, absorb, and interpret particular things that fit with our biases. In phenomenological terms, our unconscious biases might be understood as a "pre-understanding." Key concepts that flesh out this notion are gullibility and cognitive bias.

J.P. Forgas and R.F. Baumeister [23] summarize the growing literature on the social psychology of gullibility, going back as far as 1947. They define gullibility as "a failure of social intelligence in which a person is easily tricked or manipulated into an ill-advised course of action" [23], p. 2. Gullibility occurs when "an individual's beliefs are manifestly inconsistent with facts and reality, or [they] are at variance with social norms about reality" [23], p. 2. The psychological foundation of gullibility "appears to be the universal human capacity for trust – to accept second-hand information we receive from others as a proxy for reality" [23], p. 5.

They identify six psychological mechanisms of gullibility: (1) The search for patterns and meaning: because human beings want to make sense of reality, they often find patterns and causation where there is none. This may partially explain how conspiracy theories emerge [23], p. 8. (2) Acceptance bias: "the near-universal tendency for human beings to accept rather than reject information" [23], p. 9. (3) The power of heuristics: "Human beings are more prone to believe interesting, captivating stories and narratives that are salient and easy to imagine" [23], p. 9. The narrative that Trump was a successful businessman may be compelling in this manner. (4) Overbelief in the self: we are prone to "self-serving biases and distortions" [23], p. 10. Thus Trump voters may have difficulty believing they made a mistake about his leadership. (5) Social mechanisms of gullibility: "all symbolic knowledge is socially constructed and shared. Comparing our views and ideas with the views and ideas of others is the way all symbolic reality is constructed" [23], p. 10. It is easy to see how Trump supporters, their personal relationships, their media (cable news and social media), their political and social groups and associations, their party, and their congressional representatives construct a narrative of Trump's leadership and effectiveness that dialogically reinforces each aspect through their disinformation ecosystem. (6) Epistemological failures to monitor and correct. Human beings fail to monitor and evaluate incoming information correctly in terms of their logical merits [23], p. 11. Because Trump's supporters are bathed in emotions such as anger and resentment, any logical analysis fails or critical selfreflection fails. If there is any reasoning at all, it is a "motivated reasoning" built on pregiven conclusions, a rationalization to serve one's biases. We will look the issue of motivated reasoning in more detail later. Cognitive biases are another important psychological dimension of human beings, but our focus will be that of the predispositions of Trump supporters.

Cherry [24] defines cognitive bias as "a systematic error in thinking that occurs when people are processing and interpreting information in the world around them." The vast research on cognitive bias has identified several aspects that foster disinformation campaigns, some of which are particularly salient in the political domain. When people exhibit cognitive bias, they take particular, flawed mental shortcuts regularly. Wikipedia lists more than 200 types of cognitive bias, many with variant names [25]. In order to make such a large list manageable, Benson [26] proposes four clusters of biases based on whether they involve (1) too much information, (2) not enough meaning, (3) the need to act fast, or (4) confusion about what we should remember. Given the cacophony of available information streams in contemporary society, the first cluster has a high incidence. In the face of too much information, people typically allow their cognitive biases to dictate their thinking, opinions, and actions when they must make quick assessments. Obviously, this strategy is true of all people, anywhere on the political spectrum from left to right, but the focus of the research here are those who lean to the ultra-right. Other factors that invoke cognitive biases include a person's emotions or motivations, the limits on the mind's ability to process information, and social pressures [24]. All of these causes seem to be relevant to such groups as Trump supporters, who make errors in judgment about actual facts, who often are engaged in anger and resentment about current events, who are seduced by the social pressures coming from their ingroup (social self-deception and collective self-deception), and who have less flexibility in processing information than Democrats. Among Trump's voters, age may also be a factor, as in the 2016 election older voters heavily broke for Trump because aging can increase cognitive bias due to lost cognitive flexibility [24].

Thirteen pertinent cognitive biases have particular relevance for disinformation adherents: (1) the availability heuristic, (2) attentional bias, (3) illusory truth, (4) affect bias, (5) negativity bias, (6) anchoring, (7) confirmation bias, (8) the bandwagon effect, (9) stereotyping, (10) ingroup bias, (11) projection bias, (12)

**19**

*A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump*

that all persons, of any political stripe, are vulnerable to them.

the Dunning-Kruger effect, and (13) the self-serving bias. The explanation of these factors with examples from the Trump administration should not obscure the fact

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples

Second, attentional bias refers to how the direction of attention affects a person's perception. Engaging this bias, one pays attention to some things while simultaneously ignoring others. For example, a Trump supporter might focus on Trump's deployment of federal troops to quell "riots," giving no attention to the fact that so-called riots are mostly peaceful protests against police brutality, and thus believe his claim to be the law-and-order president. Trump often invokes this bias through ad hominem attacks: "sleepy Joe," "crooked Hillary," or characterizations of attacks on him, "witch hunt" or "hoax," so that his listeners revert to the stories he invents

The illusory truth effect is a bias that occurs when repetition creates bias. This bias mimics the positive feeling we get when we hear information that we know is true in the service of information that may be false but that we have heard before. The Republican party has long been a master of repetition in the sense that it creates discipline such that all Republican officials repeat variants of the same message, such as that trickle-down economics lessen poverty. When Trump reports that he has managed an excellent response to the coronavirus, Republicans as well as *Fox News*, white evangelicals, and like-minded leaders are prepared to repeat the message that hundreds of thousands of deaths represent a good outcome because it

Fourth, the affect heuristic, reflects the tendency to rely on emotions in our initial decisions regarding some action, event, or information. Rather than reflecting on the long-term consequences of a decision, we rely on our emotional state. Business ethics expert, Chris MacDonald, attributes Trump's 2016 election victory

*The net result of this built-in human mental trait is that rather than letting our beliefs about the world tell us how to feel, we tend to let our emotions tell us what to believe. Afraid of crime? Then you'll tend to see the world as violent (even if violent crime is at its lowest point in a generation or more). Worried about your job? Then you'll believe that unemployment is up (even if it's at a 10-year low). Trump capitalized on this by telling Americans things they felt were true. And feeling is much more compelling than listening to eggheads spout statistics on television [29].*

that come to the mind of a person when assessing a particular topic, idea, or decision. It relies on placing greater value on information that comes to mind quickly, based on the assumption that it must be important and more trustworthy than countervailing information. A person's judgments weigh their assessments based on more recent information, meaning new opinions rely on the latest news [27]. A senior writer at *Wired*, Emily Dreyfuss [28], claims that Trump is a master facilitator of the availability heuristic. He starts with the straw man fallacy, a logical fallacy in which one exaggerates the position of one's opponent and then attacks it. A classic example is Ronald Reagan's use of the notion of a "welfare queen," a Black woman who exploits the welfare system. Linda Taylor who, in fact, did exploit the welfare system, became the straw man for Reagan, and her story exploited the availability heuristic because it was memorable. However, her case was extremely uncommon, and abuse of the welfare system was and remains rare. Trump's story of Mexican rapists reflects the same strategy with the same impact on his supporters, who come to believe that immigrants have a high level of criminality in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. Salient images stick in the minds of his supporters

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95000*

and come to mind readily.

to apply such memes.

could have been worse.

primarily to affect bias:

#### *A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95000*

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

often find patterns and causation where there is none. This may partially explain how conspiracy theories emerge [23], p. 8. (2) Acceptance bias: "the near-universal tendency for human beings to accept rather than reject information" [23], p. 9. (3) The power of heuristics: "Human beings are more prone to believe interesting, captivating stories and narratives that are salient and easy to imagine" [23], p. 9. The narrative that Trump was a successful businessman may be compelling in this manner. (4) Overbelief in the self: we are prone to "self-serving biases and distortions" [23], p. 10. Thus Trump voters may have difficulty believing they made a mistake about his leadership. (5) Social mechanisms of gullibility: "all symbolic knowledge is socially constructed and shared. Comparing our views and ideas with the views and ideas of others is the way all symbolic reality is constructed" [23], p. 10. It is easy to see how Trump supporters, their personal relationships, their media (cable news and social media), their political and social groups and associations, their party, and their congressional representatives construct a narrative of Trump's leadership and effectiveness that dialogically reinforces each aspect through their disinformation ecosystem. (6) Epistemological failures to monitor and correct. Human beings fail to monitor and evaluate incoming information correctly in terms of their logical merits [23], p. 11. Because Trump's supporters are bathed in emotions such as anger and resentment, any logical analysis fails or critical selfreflection fails. If there is any reasoning at all, it is a "motivated reasoning" built on pregiven conclusions, a rationalization to serve one's biases. We will look the issue of motivated reasoning in more detail later. Cognitive biases are another important psychological dimension of human beings, but our focus will be that of the predis-

Cherry [24] defines cognitive bias as "a systematic error in thinking that occurs

Thirteen pertinent cognitive biases have particular relevance for disinformation

adherents: (1) the availability heuristic, (2) attentional bias, (3) illusory truth, (4) affect bias, (5) negativity bias, (6) anchoring, (7) confirmation bias, (8) the bandwagon effect, (9) stereotyping, (10) ingroup bias, (11) projection bias, (12)

when people are processing and interpreting information in the world around them." The vast research on cognitive bias has identified several aspects that foster disinformation campaigns, some of which are particularly salient in the political domain. When people exhibit cognitive bias, they take particular, flawed mental shortcuts regularly. Wikipedia lists more than 200 types of cognitive bias, many with variant names [25]. In order to make such a large list manageable, Benson [26] proposes four clusters of biases based on whether they involve (1) too much information, (2) not enough meaning, (3) the need to act fast, or (4) confusion about what we should remember. Given the cacophony of available information streams in contemporary society, the first cluster has a high incidence. In the face of too much information, people typically allow their cognitive biases to dictate their thinking, opinions, and actions when they must make quick assessments. Obviously, this strategy is true of all people, anywhere on the political spectrum from left to right, but the focus of the research here are those who lean to the ultra-right. Other factors that invoke cognitive biases include a person's emotions or motivations, the limits on the mind's ability to process information, and social pressures [24]. All of these causes seem to be relevant to such groups as Trump supporters, who make errors in judgment about actual facts, who often are engaged in anger and resentment about current events, who are seduced by the social pressures coming from their ingroup (social self-deception and collective self-deception), and who have less flexibility in processing information than Democrats. Among Trump's voters, age may also be a factor, as in the 2016 election older voters heavily broke for Trump because aging can increase cognitive bias due to lost cognitive

**18**

flexibility [24].

positions of Trump supporters.

the Dunning-Kruger effect, and (13) the self-serving bias. The explanation of these factors with examples from the Trump administration should not obscure the fact that all persons, of any political stripe, are vulnerable to them.

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that relies on immediate examples that come to the mind of a person when assessing a particular topic, idea, or decision. It relies on placing greater value on information that comes to mind quickly, based on the assumption that it must be important and more trustworthy than countervailing information. A person's judgments weigh their assessments based on more recent information, meaning new opinions rely on the latest news [27]. A senior writer at *Wired*, Emily Dreyfuss [28], claims that Trump is a master facilitator of the availability heuristic. He starts with the straw man fallacy, a logical fallacy in which one exaggerates the position of one's opponent and then attacks it. A classic example is Ronald Reagan's use of the notion of a "welfare queen," a Black woman who exploits the welfare system. Linda Taylor who, in fact, did exploit the welfare system, became the straw man for Reagan, and her story exploited the availability heuristic because it was memorable. However, her case was extremely uncommon, and abuse of the welfare system was and remains rare. Trump's story of Mexican rapists reflects the same strategy with the same impact on his supporters, who come to believe that immigrants have a high level of criminality in spite of strong evidence to the contrary. Salient images stick in the minds of his supporters and come to mind readily.

Second, attentional bias refers to how the direction of attention affects a person's perception. Engaging this bias, one pays attention to some things while simultaneously ignoring others. For example, a Trump supporter might focus on Trump's deployment of federal troops to quell "riots," giving no attention to the fact that so-called riots are mostly peaceful protests against police brutality, and thus believe his claim to be the law-and-order president. Trump often invokes this bias through ad hominem attacks: "sleepy Joe," "crooked Hillary," or characterizations of attacks on him, "witch hunt" or "hoax," so that his listeners revert to the stories he invents to apply such memes.

The illusory truth effect is a bias that occurs when repetition creates bias. This bias mimics the positive feeling we get when we hear information that we know is true in the service of information that may be false but that we have heard before. The Republican party has long been a master of repetition in the sense that it creates discipline such that all Republican officials repeat variants of the same message, such as that trickle-down economics lessen poverty. When Trump reports that he has managed an excellent response to the coronavirus, Republicans as well as *Fox News*, white evangelicals, and like-minded leaders are prepared to repeat the message that hundreds of thousands of deaths represent a good outcome because it could have been worse.

Fourth, the affect heuristic, reflects the tendency to rely on emotions in our initial decisions regarding some action, event, or information. Rather than reflecting on the long-term consequences of a decision, we rely on our emotional state. Business ethics expert, Chris MacDonald, attributes Trump's 2016 election victory primarily to affect bias:

*The net result of this built-in human mental trait is that rather than letting our beliefs about the world tell us how to feel, we tend to let our emotions tell us what to believe. Afraid of crime? Then you'll tend to see the world as violent (even if violent crime is at its lowest point in a generation or more). Worried about your job? Then you'll believe that unemployment is up (even if it's at a 10-year low). Trump capitalized on this by telling Americans things they felt were true. And feeling is much more compelling than listening to eggheads spout statistics on television [29].*

As he faces another election, Trump claims that he promotes law and order even as racial strife and police brutality erupt, and he speaks approvingly of murderous vigilantes. He inflames emotions such as anger, resentment, and racial hatred to justify the falsehood.

Negativity bias occurs when persons have a greater recall of unpleasant memories than pleasant ones. Even when adverse events and positive events are of the same scale, we feel the negative ones more strongly. Trump and GOP members used this during his first presidential campaign by focusing on Hillary Clinton's involvement with Benghazi. In his reelection attempt, he hoped fearing crime and the destruction of property would outweigh the memory of watching George Floyd die at the hands of police.

Anchoring is the bias in which one relies heavily on one trait or characteristic (the anchor), usually the first piece of information one hears on a particular topic. When the coronavirus began in earnest, Trump asserted that it was not a serious problem and that it was not more dangerous than the common flu. That initial piece of advice stuck in people's minds and made them doubt the seriousness of the pandemic and to continue to court the idea it was a hoax.

Confirmation bias involves interpreting information that supports our existing beliefs, even when presented with conflicting evidence. Trump supporters hold all sorts of improbable beliefs because they concord with their preexisting beliefs: e.g., that Trump is a great president; was successful in curbing the coronavirus, its infection, and death rate; cares about poor people; is draining the Washington swamp; is a great businessman; that his tax cuts helped all Americans; and that he has a great plan for healthcare, all of which are false.

The bandwagon effect is the bias in which we support opinions as and when they become popular. We tend to adopt certain behaviors or beliefs because many other people do the same. Trump's constant use of rallies throughout his presidency exploits this effect. Social media can have the same effect, as seen in the popularization of QAnon theories.

Stereotyping is the bias when we expect a member of a group to have certain beliefs or characteristics because of their group membership.

Ingroup bias is the tendency for a person to give preferential treatment to those they perceive as members of their own group. Thus if Trump supporters see Trump as good for the working class, they may support him even if they recognize his harms to people of color. Political scientist Jeffrey Friedman argues that Trump's harsh policies on immigration stem more from nationalism (ingroup favoritism) rather than xenophobia [30]. Trump supporters tend to make the claim that he always has their backs, although the actuality may something else, e.g. attacking Obamacare and Social Security.

Projection bias occurs when we believe that our current preferences and values will remain the same in the future, which can lead to short-sighted errors. Many Trump supporters, especially poor ones, believe that the current values will remain the same in the future, failing to remember when they had the same view when they voted Obama into office. Many members of minorities voted for Trump, and they projected that their feelings about him would have remained the same throughout his presidency. One suspects that Trump's actions during his first term may have dissuaded many of those who originally voted for him, illustrating their original projection bias.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is the tendency to overestimate one's abilities. Trump himself clearly suffers from this effect, given his confidence that he "alone" can solve all the nation's problems. Many of Trump supporters suffer from this same effect. They overestimate their capabilities in assessing his character and

**21**

authoritarianism.

*A Disinformation-Misinformation Ecology: The Case of Trump*

achievements. They are uncritical of their being uncritical and lack the skills and acumen to make a realistic assessment of their own abilities, let alone that of the

The final bias, self-serving bias, occurs when one claims responsibility for one's successes while blaming failures on external factors. Trump seems to have made a lifestyle from this bias. His rewards are due to his "very stable genius," but his bankruptcies were due to others' failures. Any promise he has not kept is due to the Democrats' resistance, Congress's unwillingness to do his bidding, or unfortunate circumstances (e.g., the coronavirus coming to the U.S. during his presidency),

We shall see shortly how these biases play into how disinformation campaigns succeed. To see how they play in Trump supporters, we can look at the psychological

When reviewing their psychological aspects, it is clear that there is an overlap among studies on willful ignorance, information avoidance, gullibility, and cognitive bias, and that these definitions are approaches to the same issues from different perspectives [16]. To provide details, there are specific studies of Trump supporters. In his paper, "Social Psychological Perspectives on Trump Supporters," psychologist Thomas Pettigrew [31] identifies factors reflecting five major social psychological phenomena that account for the bulk of Trump supporters' devotion: tolerance for authoritarianism, a preference for associating with socially dominant groups (social dominance orientation, SDO), prejudice, low intergroup contact (i.e., little familiarity with groups other than themselves), and relative deprivation (i.e., feeling that others are much better off than they are). While acknowledging political factors may be at work as well as other psychological factors, he argues that these five

Pettigrew finds that many Trump supporters are attracted to authoritarian figures. Authoritarianism is characterized by such traits as "deference to authority, aggression toward outgroups, a rigidly hierarchical view of the world, and resistance to new experience" [31], p. 108. Authoritarians see the world as dangerous, and fear guides their response to it. While social psychologists debate whether authoritarianism is a personality construct or a political ideology, Pettigrew argues that "there is no necessary conflict between these two perspectives." That is, it usually starts as a personality orientation, which then leads to an engagement with right-wing political ideology. Trump's rhetoric stokes fear, which leads his supporters to consider him to be an authority on matters of American security, leading them to support him in his efforts to secure the borders against outgroups, including through family separation policy and a border wall between the United States and Mexico. His deployment of federal troops on peaceful protesters in Portland, Oregon, and tear gassing of protesters in Washington, DC, reflects his

In a related study of right-wing politicians who are high on the authoritarian scale, psychologists Alyssa H. Sinclair, Matthew L. Stanley, and Paul Seli found that they fail to update their belief system when confronted with new information and they are motivated to preserve their entrenched beliefs. They concluded high rightwing authoritarians have "a relatively closed-minded cognitive style that negatively influences belief updating" [32]. Donald Trump's self-deception seems to clearly

Returning to Pettigrew, he defines SDO as "an individual's preference for the societal hierarchy of groups and domination over lower-status groups" [31], p. 108.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.95000*

studies specifically devoted to them.

dimensions are particularly relevant.

conform to that of other authoritarian leaders.

**4.1 Psychological studies of Trump supporters**

president.

and so on.

*Fake News Is Bad News - Hoaxes, Half-Truths and the Nature of Today's Journalism*

justify the falsehood.

at the hands of police.

tion of QAnon theories.

Obamacare and Social Security.

As he faces another election, Trump claims that he promotes law and order even as racial strife and police brutality erupt, and he speaks approvingly of murderous vigilantes. He inflames emotions such as anger, resentment, and racial hatred to

Negativity bias occurs when persons have a greater recall of unpleasant memories than pleasant ones. Even when adverse events and positive events are of the same scale, we feel the negative ones more strongly. Trump and GOP members used this during his first presidential campaign by focusing on Hillary Clinton's involvement with Benghazi. In his reelection attempt, he hoped fearing crime and the destruction of property would outweigh the memory of watching George Floyd die

Anchoring is the bias in which one relies heavily on one trait or characteristic (the anchor), usually the first piece of information one hears on a particular topic. When the coronavirus began in earnest, Trump asserted that it was not a serious problem and that it was not more dangerous than the common flu. That initial piece of advice stuck in people's minds and made them doubt the seriousness of the

Confirmation bias involves interpreting information that supports our existing beliefs, even when presented with conflicting evidence. Trump supporters hold all sorts of improbable beliefs because they concord with their preexisting beliefs: e.g., that Trump is a great president; was successful in curbing the coronavirus, its infection, and death rate; cares about poor people; is draining the Washington swamp; is a great businessman; that his tax cuts helped all Americans; and that he has a great

The bandwagon effect is the bias in which we support opinions as and when they become popular. We tend to adopt certain behaviors or beliefs because many other people do the same. Trump's constant use of rallies throughout his presidency exploits this effect. Social media can have the same effect, as seen in the populariza-

Stereotyping is the bias when we expect a member of a group to have certain beliefs or characteristics because of their group membership.  Thus if Trump supporters see Trump as good for the working class, they may support him even if they recognize his harms to people of color. Political scientist Jeffrey Friedman argues that Trump's harsh policies on immigration stem more from nationalism (ingroup favoritism) rather than xenophobia [30]. Trump supporters tend to make the claim that he always has their backs, although the actuality may something else, e.g. attacking

Projection bias occurs when we believe that our current preferences and values will remain the same in the future, which can lead to short-sighted errors. Many Trump supporters, especially poor ones, believe that the current values will remain the same in the future, failing to remember when they had the same view when they voted Obama into office. Many members of minorities voted for Trump, and they projected that their feelings about him would have remained the same throughout his presidency. One suspects that Trump's actions during his first term may have dissuaded many of those who originally voted for him, illustrating their original projection bias. The Dunning-Kruger effect is the tendency to overestimate one's abilities. Trump himself clearly suffers from this effect, given his confidence that he "alone" can solve all the nation's problems. Many of Trump supporters suffer from this same effect. They overestimate their capabilities in assessing his character and

suggesting women of color in Congress go back to their countries.

pandemic and to continue to court the idea it was a hoax.

plan for healthcare, all of which are false.

**20**

achievements. They are uncritical of their being uncritical and lack the skills and acumen to make a realistic assessment of their own abilities, let alone that of the president.