A new preprint is out! Since 2022, the Kremlin turned disinformation accusations—debunking criticism as disinformation spread by opponents—into its key propaganda strategy. But how does it work? @Margarita Zavadskaya and I use an experiment to answer this Q (15): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=468182…

1/ Accusing opponents of disinfo is not Putin’s invention and can be traced back to the Cold War. Recently, it received new intensity exemplified by this person on the picture calling whatever he doesn’t like 'fake news,’ but also practiced widely by authoritarian propaganda.

2/ The Kremlin has been experimenting with this technique for a while, but it reached its zenith in 2022. A new TV show ‘Anti-Fake’ and a network of Telegram channels ‘War on Fakes’ have been relying on fact-checking format to debunk any accusations of wrongdoing as disinfo.

3/ At the same time, the refusal to take a stance became an important reaction to the war in Russia. There are pro- or anti-war people, but many refrain from judgment, exemplified by the infamous cliché ‘it’s not that simple, we do not know the whole truth’, as seen on this meme:

4/ We got curious whether there is a connection and exposed ~3000 people to news stories focusing on Russia’s missile attack in Ukraine and inflation in Russia. We used pro-regime or anti-regime framing AND matching debunking stories exposing the original stories as disinfo.

5/ First, we find that both pro-regime and anti-regime debunking items work as intended: they reduce the perceived credibility of news stories being debunked. Pro-regime debunking items discredit anti-regime news items, and vice versa.

6/ Second, we find that disinfo accusations confuse citizens. Exposure to both news and disinfo accusations debunking the news at the same time can cause uncertainty, making it easier for people to find justifications for avoiding attributing blame for the invasion.

7/ Third, surprisingly, we also discover various backfire effects. For instance, anti-regime messages emphasising Russia’s responsibility and de-emphasising the West’s responsibility for the war actually make them blame the West more.

8/ Anti-regime messages emphasising Russia’s responsibility can evoke negative emotions and achieve the opposite effect, leading people to project responsibility onto the West and shaping their attitudes in line with pro-regime propaganda blaming the West for the war.

9/ We outline a number of preliminary practical and theoretical implications of these results:

10/ First, debunking propaganda as disinfo works. But debunking oppositional reporting as disinfo by propaganda works, too! As the regime will always have more resources to disseminate disinfo accusations, it will likely be more successful in discrediting oppositional reporting.

11/ Second, the attempts at countering propaganda can backfire. Western govts and Russian oppo have been trying hard to change opinions about the war in Russia. These attempts are not ineffective, but messages should be pre-tested so that they don't have unintended consequences.

12/ Third, as the regime adopted the elements of fact-checking, we tested disinfo accusations with the elements of fact-checking. There is good and bad news for fact-checking and fact-based approaches to mis-/disinfo more generally:

13/ We know that fact-checking is effective. But we often assume that by default it is performed by independent experts who rely on facts to question lies. What if the same effect can be achieved by an authoritarian government relying on the same format and its own ‘facts’?

14/ This inversion questions the distinction between true and false info. Facts are important for fighting dis-/misinfo. However, they should be complemented by the search for narratives making facts resonate with audiences and building a culture that makes people value facts.

15/ Theoretically, the study shows the evolution of authoritarian propaganda. While it is impossible to isolate citizens from alternative information in saturated media environments, disinfo accusations allow the autocrat to pre-emptively debunk criticism and confuse citizens.

16/ This also aligns with the research arguing that political passivity is essential to contemporary autocracies. We identify a strategy that autocrats can use to keep citizens out of politics. Propaganda can confuse citizens and prevent them from attributing blame for policies.

The data collection was supported by @University of Helsinki. This study is also a part of my project ‘Reflexive propaganda: authoritarian communication in a hybrid media environment’ at @School of Arts, Languages and Culture supported by the @The Leverhulme Trust.

Oops, the link appears to be broken, here is the correct one: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4681826…