The securitisation of fake news in Singapore

2020

Journalism

Self Cite

Fake news has been recognised as a pressing issue by scholars, who have highlighted the destabilising impact it portends in societies. Beyond an understanding of the empirical effects of fake news on democratic institutions that recent scholarship has shed light on, emergent research also points to the potential of fake news being weaponised as a discursive tool to achieve political ends. In that light, this study sets out to analyse the discourses of fake news as advanced by states. Results from a critical discourse analysis of articles relating to fake news ( n = 450) from four countries – Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam – reveal four key findings: first, fake news is being framed as an existential security issue that directly threatens foundational societal values. Second, fake news as an issue is constructed as a new and unprecedented contemporary problem, and compared on equal terms to other security threats such as terrorism, chemical attacks and cyberwarfare. Third, the threat of fake news is used to justify the passing of broad-reaching legislation and curbs on free speech that are construed as aligned with global democratic norms. Lastly, the term is used to facilitate unsubstantiated ‘lying press’ accusations against media outlets. Overall, this study suggests that fake news can be damaging to the quality of democracies not only as a result of its dissemination, but also through the discursive instrumentalisation of the term to curb civil liberties and justify crackdowns.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A cudgel of repression: Analysing state instrumentalisation of the ‘fake news’ label in Southeast Asia

2020

Journalism

Self Cite

“…Research has highlighted how accusations can increase perceptions of media bias as well as decrease public trust in the journalism industry (Ladd, 2012). Accusing media outlets as being producers of fake news has the effect of silencing future potential dissidents, who would be deterred from voluntarily subjecting themselves to the risk of persecution by reporting on developments contrary to official narratives (Neo, 2019).…”

Section: The Discursive Weaponization Of "Fake News"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fighting Fire With Fire? Relegitimizing Strategies for Media Institutions Faced With Unwarranted “Fake News” Accusations

2022

Social Media + Society

Self Cite

Empirical accounts point to the increasing weaponization of the “fake news” label—or unwarranted fake news accusations—by politicians to deflect critical reporting and delegitimize media outlets and achieve political ends. While research has begun unpacking the implications of such attacks, little attention has been paid toward avenues to counter them. Drawing upon the literature on misinformation and crisis management research and through an experimental survey ( n = 1,460), this study explores strategies that media outlets can employ to protect themselves against unwarranted “fake news” accusations—specifically through various denial and attack responses. Results show that denial strategies significantly increase respondents’ belief in the initial critical report, increase support of the media while conversely decreasing support of the politician. While variants of more offensive attack strategies also led to these anticipated effects, simple denials were found to be more effective in protecting the legitimacy of the media outlet. This suggests that such strategies can constitute a simple first-level measure through which institutions can undertake to challenge unfounded fake news accusations.

“…Narayanan et al, 2017), some groups have proposed that discursively conceiving the issue of fake news from the perspective of a national threat can be vulnerable to abuse by governments and would risk resulting in solutions that can disrupt the delicate balance between the protection of public order and respect for open dialogue and civil liberties (Financial Times, 2019). In examining the case of Singapore, Neo (2019) shows how framing fake news as an urgent threat to national security can lead to undesirable consequences such as curtailments of civil liberties, a decline in freedom of expression and a climate of increased censorship and self‐censorship.…”

Section: The Contemporary Phenomenon Of Fake Newsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The International Discourses and Governance of Fake News

2021

Global Policy

Self Cite

Since the 2016 US presidential elections, fake news and misinformation have been recognised as a major problem of the modern, connected world. However, this increased salience has been accompanied by an expansion in voices articulating different approaches towards the issue. This article presents an examination of the range of societal discourses of fake news advanced by four types of hegemonic societal actors: international organisations, states, civil society and large business interests, focusing on the following. First, how do existing discourses conceive of the nature of fake news and the societal objects it threatens? Next, what are the solutions proposed? Through an analysis of policy interventions and texts, this article presents a taxonomy of the current most salient understandings of fake news, showing that present conceptualisations of the issue can be categorised into three competing discourses: discourses constructing fake news as an existential threat, a political problem or a minor issue. The analysis highlights important variations in how different regimes conceptualise fake news, revealing how authoritarian governments have sought to construct fake news as a security threat in order to justify constraints on free speech. On the flipside, leaving fake news completely unregulated leads to conflict‐of‐interest issues and an accountability gulf implicating ‘Big Tech’. This article calls for more analytical focus on the discourses of fake news, which constitutes a significant but under‐examined factor in comprehending the long‐term consequences of the problem of fake news.