Library:Network Propaganda
| Network Propaganda | |
|---|---|
| Author | Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris & Hal Roberts |
| First published | 2018 |
| ISBN | 978-0-19-092362-4 |
| Role | Analysis |
| Domains | Politics & Elections Technology & Media |
| Tactics | Propaganda Technique Conspiracy Theory |
Network Propaganda is a 2018 book by Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris & Hal Roberts.
Summary
Yochai Benkler, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts, researchers at Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, published this study in 2018. Drawing on an analysis of millions of online news stories and how they were shared during and after the 2016 US presidential election, it examines how the American media system handles disinformation. Its conclusions are data-driven, and also politically contested.
The method
The authors used large-scale analysis of links, shares and media coverage to map the structure of the American media ecosystem. They supplemented the data with detailed case studies of how particular false stories began, spread and were or were not corrected.
Asymmetric polarization
The book's central finding is what the authors call asymmetric polarization. They found that the media ecosystem was not divided into two mirror images. Outlets on the centre and left, they argue, remained connected to traditional news organizations that followed professional norms of accuracy and correction, so false stories there tended to be checked. On the right, they found a more insular network centred on a few highly partisan outlets, in which false stories could circulate and reinforce each other without correction. They describe this as a "propaganda feedback loop" in which audiences, outlets and politicians reward each other for confirming shared beliefs.
The case studies
The authors trace how several false or misleading stories spread, including the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory, false claims surrounding the murder of a Democratic Party staffer and misleading stories about a uranium deal. They also examine how mainstream media sometimes amplified misleading stories through its own coverage norms.
Foreign interference
A notable finding is that the authors considered Russian interference and the data firm Cambridge Analytica less important to the election's information environment than many commentators claimed. They argued that the main drivers were domestic.
The debate
The book's conclusions about political asymmetry have been widely debated. Critics argue that it underweights distortion in left-leaning and mainstream media, that the 2016 period may not represent other periods and that how one defines and measures disinformation shapes the results. The authors acknowledge that false stories appear across the spectrum; their claim concerns how the ecosystems respond to them.
Relevance to Bullshitopedia
The book offers a model for documenting how claims travel through networks, not only whether they are false. For an evenhanded site, it is best used for its methods and case studies, with its conclusions about political asymmetry presented as the authors' findings within an ongoing debate.