Periodic Reporting for period 1 - Media andConspiracy (Lost in an Ocean of Information? Media in the Everyday Life of Conspiracy Theorists)
Période du rapport: 2019-09-01 au 2021-08-31
The question of truth receives much societal attention today: fake news, alternative facts and conspiracy theories seem everywhere. These discussions have only gained urgency during the corona pandemic. The contemporary media landscape plays an important role in the rise and spread of these alternative forms of knowledge, but how is largely unknown. Wishing to delve deeper than current media hypes and moral panics allow for, I have ethnographically studied the role of media in the everyday life of conspiracy theorists (CT) from a cultural sociological perspective. To study what media sources (TVchannels, newspapers, internet sites, blogs, Facebook pages/groups, etc) CTs use and why, I asked them to keep a “media diary” for two weeks and reflect on that in a follow-up interview. To study how CT’s read (interpret, appropriate and authenticate) media contents, I conducted photo/video elicitation interviews. This illuminates the way people engage with media (technologies) in an era of information overload. Such insights are valuable not just for scholars interested in the topic itself, but speak more broadly to professionals in the field (e.g. journalists, policy makers, government officials, scientists, NGO’s and politicians) who have to deal with the broader distrust of official knowledge in Western European societies.
Due to the corona pandemic, no ethnographic accounts where I would be studying the online behaviour of CTs at their own homes were possible. Instead, I had to organize online meetings, most notably in the form of skype interviews in which I asked more about their media behaviour. I could and have made use of the research method of media diaries to probe their online media consumption, most of my respondents filled this in. The first main finding is that most CTs use a wide variety of news sources: from small independent news outlets, to conspiratorial blogs and newly emerging YouTube channels, but also the more mainstream public news outlets. However, the alternative media outlets that sprung up in the last years are mostly followed to get information that does not appear in the mainstream. Reasons for following these alternative channels is not merely (or at all) that mainstream media is distrusted, but more that these channels provide alternative and complementary perspectives on mainstream news. As such, respondents argue, they add to a fuller perspective of what is going on in the world.
The second main finding is that CTs actually do consult the “mainstream media” they often so much despise. More than not, these people are aware of most societal discussions, and stay up-to-date by following mainstream, and mostly public service media. However, differently from most audiences who interpret the mainstream media for its substantive contents, CTs consult mainstream media for different reasons. The most prominent reason was to remain up-to-date about how topics of concern are portrayed in the mass-media and how “the majority of society” thinks about contemporary issues.
Thirdly, the corona pandemic forced me to shift focus from the concrete media consumption behavior that I could observe at home, to their experiences and understandings of the role of the media during this public health crisis. Based on interviews with 23 CTs during the pandemic, I explain how they have come to distrust the official narrative as present in most media, government and science communication. Respondents argue that their suspicion began because most governments acted in unique accordance with each other, because only one way out of the crisis was presented by public health authorities and science advisory committees, and because most media did not present a variety of perspectives on how to deal with the crisis, but uniformly initiated a media panic highlighting the dangers of the virus/pandemic, and legitimizing government policies. Because media, science and politics were so much aligned in their framing of the problem and in the formulation of solutions, suspicions arose whether this did not indicate a (global) conspiracy.
Due to the corona pandemic, no ethnographic accounts where I would be studying the online behaviour of CTs at their own homes were possible. Instead, I had to organize online meetings, most notably in the form of skype interviews in which I asked more about their media behaviour. I could and have made use of the research method of media diaries to probe their online media consumption, most of my respondents filled this in. The first main finding is that most CTs use a wide variety of news sources: from small independent news outlets, to conspiratorial blogs and newly emerging YouTube channels, but also the more mainstream public news outlets. However, the alternative media outlets that sprung up in the last years are mostly followed to get information that does not appear in the mainstream. Reasons for following these alternative channels is not merely (or at all) that mainstream media is distrusted, but more that these channels provide alternative and complementary perspectives on mainstream news. As such, respondents argue, they add to a fuller perspective of what is going on in the world.
The second main finding is that CTs actually do consult the “mainstream media” they often so much despise. More than not, these people are aware of most societal discussions, and stay up-to-date by following mainstream, and mostly public service media. However, differently from most audiences who interpret the mainstream media for its substantive contents, CTs consult mainstream media for different reasons. The most prominent reason was to remain up-to-date about how topics of concern are portrayed in the mass-media and how “the majority of society” thinks about contemporary issues.
Thirdly, the corona pandemic forced me to shift focus from the concrete media consumption behavior that I could observe at home, to their experiences and understandings of the role of the media during this public health crisis. Based on interviews with 23 CTs during the pandemic, I explain how they have come to distrust the official narrative as present in most media, government and science communication. Respondents argue that their suspicion began because most governments acted in unique accordance with each other, because only one way out of the crisis was presented by public health authorities and science advisory committees, and because most media did not present a variety of perspectives on how to deal with the crisis, but uniformly initiated a media panic highlighting the dangers of the virus/pandemic, and legitimizing government policies. Because media, science and politics were so much aligned in their framing of the problem and in the formulation of solutions, suspicions arose whether this did not indicate a (global) conspiracy.
First, the empirical research on the media consumption of CTs. This entailed 23 in-depth online interviews with CTs and the analysis of their media diaries and is for a special issue on Trust and Media in a Digital Era (with the Journal for Digital Social Research).
Second, a close content analysis of the Dutch media reporting on the corona pandemic was performed. This entailed the qualitative analysis of 186 newspaper articles of the corona pandemic in the first 94 days since the smart lockdown. This paper is now in review.
Third, a special issue on the question of whether and how academics should engage with conspiracy theorists got published. The special issue got published in the Journal for Cultural Research (2021:1).
Fourth, a research paper on the various ideas and concerns of a broad Dutch audience on conspiracy theories and broader post-truth debates were assessed via a qualitative content analysis of the (522) comments. This paper is submitted after a first positively assessed review round following a Revise and Resubmit at Public Understanding of Science.
Fifth, two chapters on conspiracy theories and my research approach have been produced and published during the course of this project: Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (2021) and Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism (2021).
Sixth, I have written a piece on the corona conspiracy theories for a wider audience for The Conversation (2020), and in the Science & Technology Studies Journal.
Seventh, I have presented my research at 4 international conferences, was selected to present my research in 3 international seminars/workshops, and I (co)organized two panels at two international conferences.
Eight, I gave 11 public lectures, of which 4 keynote speeches; 6 professional expert lectures, 9 personal newspaper interviews about my research, 3 television performances, and 4 radio interviews.
Second, a close content analysis of the Dutch media reporting on the corona pandemic was performed. This entailed the qualitative analysis of 186 newspaper articles of the corona pandemic in the first 94 days since the smart lockdown. This paper is now in review.
Third, a special issue on the question of whether and how academics should engage with conspiracy theorists got published. The special issue got published in the Journal for Cultural Research (2021:1).
Fourth, a research paper on the various ideas and concerns of a broad Dutch audience on conspiracy theories and broader post-truth debates were assessed via a qualitative content analysis of the (522) comments. This paper is submitted after a first positively assessed review round following a Revise and Resubmit at Public Understanding of Science.
Fifth, two chapters on conspiracy theories and my research approach have been produced and published during the course of this project: Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology (2021) and Routledge Companion to Media Disinformation and Populism (2021).
Sixth, I have written a piece on the corona conspiracy theories for a wider audience for The Conversation (2020), and in the Science & Technology Studies Journal.
Seventh, I have presented my research at 4 international conferences, was selected to present my research in 3 international seminars/workshops, and I (co)organized two panels at two international conferences.
Eight, I gave 11 public lectures, of which 4 keynote speeches; 6 professional expert lectures, 9 personal newspaper interviews about my research, 3 television performances, and 4 radio interviews.
Much contemporary research on conspiracy culture pathologizes the appeal of (corona) conspiracy theories (dangerous “loonies”). I pushed forward the SOTA by taking an ethnographic approach to show the diversity of conspiracy theorists and focus on their meaning making in order to better understand the contemporary popularity of such theories. My approach showed a wider variety of reasons and motivations of why people adhere to CTs, broadening our (SOTA) understanding of their appeal. Better understanding why people to distrust official truths, I have been able to develop more diverse and adjusted ways to engage more productively with those segments of society.
These findings of my research have been particularly useful for those (governmental) organizations and institutions (from the Police to Media) having to deal with conspiracy theorists. They expressed unanimously that my approach and research give them more tools and directions for alternative engagements that were very much appreciated and needed to combat increasing polarization.
Similarly, because of my research I have been able to (slightly) change the general discourse in public debates and the media about conspiracy theories. I have problematized the stigmatization and exclusion of these people using certain phrases and narratives. These critiques have been picked up by many media sources and journalists often write differently, in less, pejorative ways.
These findings of my research have been particularly useful for those (governmental) organizations and institutions (from the Police to Media) having to deal with conspiracy theorists. They expressed unanimously that my approach and research give them more tools and directions for alternative engagements that were very much appreciated and needed to combat increasing polarization.
Similarly, because of my research I have been able to (slightly) change the general discourse in public debates and the media about conspiracy theories. I have problematized the stigmatization and exclusion of these people using certain phrases and narratives. These critiques have been picked up by many media sources and journalists often write differently, in less, pejorative ways.