Empowering the People’s Truth Through Social Media? (De)Legitimizing Truth Claims of Populist Politicians and Citizens

Abstract

Right-wing populists have allegedly fueled increasing levels of distrust regarding expert knowledge and empirical evidence. Yet, we know little about how right-wing populist politicians and citizens use social media to construct and oppose truth claims. Using a qualitative analysis of Twitter and Facebook posts communicated by right-wing populists and citizens supporting populist ideas in the Netherlands, this article offers in-depth insights into processes of legitimization (confirming truth claims) and de-legitimization (opposing truth claims). The main conclusion is that right-wing populists and citizens supporting populism do not share a universal way of referring to reality. They use social media to communicate a confirmation-biased reality: Expert knowledge and evidence are de-contextualized or reinterpreted and aligned with right-wing populist agendas. References to the people’s experiences and worldviews, conspiracy theories and crisis sentiments are used to legitimize people’s opposition to expert knowledge and empirical evidence. Based on these findings, we coin the idea of an “adaptable construction of confirmation-biased truth claims” central in right-wing populist interpretations of reality. In times of increasing attacks on expert knowledge and empirical evidence, populist discourse may fuel an antagonism between the ordinary people’s experiences and the truth claims of established media channels and politicians in government. Social media offer a platform to members of the public to engage in discussions about (un)truthfulness, perceived deception, and populist oppositions—potentially amplifying divides between the ordinary people’s experiences and expert sources.

Positioning analysis of Spanish politicians through their Twitter posts versus Spanish public opinion

“…Political leaders use their social networks to communicate a polarised ideology that reinforces their political agenda and ideological positioning. Given the potential of social media to disseminate the opinion of political leaders with confirmation bias in the context of social support from like-minded followers, political dialogue can be hindered (Hameleers, 2022 ). Therefore, voter analysis outside the online environment can give a more realistic picture of the social context.…”

“…The effect of politicians’ posts has been studied on Facebook recently by some authors (Abejón et al, 2019 ; Acosta, 2012 ). However, of all social networks, Twitter is the one that, as a medium for political communication, has received the most attention in the most recent literature (Ernst et al, 2019 ; Hameleers, 2022 ; Kelm et al, 2019 ; Kulshrestha et al, 2018 ; Romero-Rodríguez et al, 2015 ).…”

After the epistemological turn: A framework for studying populism as a knowledge phenomenon

“…All these theories predominantly thrive in Web 2.0, which is why another important dimension recently studied in the field is the role of the Internet and social media in proliferating ‘alternative’ worldviews, but also in providing a direct mode of communication between populist leaders and their supporters (Cassell, 2021; Hameleers, 2021, 2022). This direct link allows politicians to circumvent traditional media gatekeepers and express their views without any third-actor fact-checking (Lupien and Rourke, 2021: 59).…”

“Repressed Opposition Media” or “Tools of Hybrid Warfare”? Negotiating the Boundaries of Legitimate Journalism in Ukraine Prior to Russia's Full-Scale Invasion

“…Recent research on the threats of propaganda and dis-/misinformation has mostly focused on the role of populist actors (Hameleers 2022) and foreign powers (Lukito 2020), with particular attention to social network platforms as willing amplifiers (Stöcker 2020) of this "information disorder" (Wardle and Derakhshan 2017). And yet, journalistic and quasi-journalistic actors may also pose a challenge to the viability of media systems, putting pressure on democracies to establish clear demarcation lines between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" and thus potentially harmful journalism.…”