Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics

It’s a new era. According to the authors “Technological processes beyond the control of any person or country – the convergence of social media, algorithmic news curation, bots, artificial intelligence, and big data analysis – were creating echo chambers that reinforced our biases, were removing indicia or trustworthiness, and were generally overwhelming our capacity to make sense of the world, and with it our capacity to govern ourselves as reasonable democracies.” In this book, the authors discuss these issues by applying a wide range of tools and data sets along with review of literature that developed before and after the 2016 election. We see how the party of Reagan and the two Bush presidents was defeated by the party of Trump, Breitbart, and billionaire Robert Mercer. Their work explains how a media ecosystem that initially benefited the GOPs gain of power ultimately spun out of control.The first part of the book is entitled “Epistemic Crisis.” The authors use many charts and diagrams to make their points. These charts are very enlightening. Part of the problem was the “adoption by major media of the framing and agenda-setting efforts of the right wing and the Trump campaign.” The Clinton scandal consumed the bulk of the media news – not good if you want to win an election. An interesting point made by the authors concerning the Russian interference, Facebook algorithms and such is that these things depended on “the asymmetric partisan ecosystem that has developed over the past four decades.” In other words, technology can exacerbate existing conditions to the point of crisis only if the existing underlying fabric of society is already frayed. The authors continue with definitions of propaganda and it elements – words such as, manipulation, disinformation, network propaganda, propaganda feedback loop, propaganda pipeline, and the attention backbone. There are then the effects of propaganda such as, induced misperceptions, distraction, disorientation, and misinformation. This is followed by enhancing our understanding of “the entire ecosystem: the outlets and influencers who form networks, the structure of networks, and the flow of information in networks.” What is interesting is the virtual absence of the center-right. Further right, we see how Facebook, for example, gave a large audience to Breitbart with a more normal distribution of sites on the left. Once again, the authors make good use of charts and diagrams to illustrate the data. I also found interesting that the authors concluded “that architecture and the institutional character of the media outlets that constitute it, more that the Russians, more than the fake news entrepreneurs, more than Facebook advertising, and more than Cambridge Analytica, are most directly responsible for the relevance and success of disinformation, propaganda […] in the American media ecosystem.” A consistent pattern becomes discernable from the data: there is not left-right division, but rather a division between the right and the rest of the media ecosystem. The right wing behaves as predicted by models – exhibiting high insularity with susceptibility to information cascades, rumor and conspiracy. A system of correcting falsehoods is not in play here. On the left, however, there exists a media system exhibiting structural features that are more robust to propaganda efforts and offer more avenues for self-correction.Part Two gets into the dynamics of network propaganda. Here the authors discuss three primary mechanisms by which media ecosystems affect politics: agenda setting, priming, and framing. One chapter delves into immigration and islamophobia, where we see the agenda is about immigration. After the 2005 to 2007 years of bipartisan efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, we see views on this subject diverge sharply. Again, the authors provide a plethora of charts and tables to support their research. Breitbart sticks out as a bridge between white nationalists and the rest of the media ecosystem, and again the center, center-left, and left seem to form a single media ecosystem. Another chapter is devoted to discussing three detailed case studies “of how Fox News actively used its position at the core of the right-wing media ecosystem to support the president in the central political controversy of his presidency.” Discussed is the “deep state,” the Seth Rich conspiracy theory, and the Uranium One story. What I found interesting is that the theme of mainstream media bias touted by the right has existed at least since the 1944 launch of the right-wing magazine Human Events. Another interesting revelation is that the pattern of coverage of Clinton’s email scandal show little difference between top right-wing publications and top center and center-left publications. Through many charts and diagrams, the authors showed just how, “Conspiracy theories, falsehoods, and rumors that fit the tribal narrative diffuse more broadly and are sustained for longer on the right than in the rest of the media ecosystem.”In Part Three, attention is turned to “the primary culprits that have received more sustained public attention as the alleged causes of our present moment of information disorder.” We are given examples of the “propaganda pipeline,” which is the path from the periphery to the core though various “amplification sites.” We learn also that because of their insular nature, sites and social media diffusion networks that traffic in politically motivated falsehoods make the right wing more susceptible to penetration and less capable of self-correction. This allows Russian propaganda efforts consistent with right-wing American framings to insert themselves and gain credence in their media system. There is more discussion about sockpuppets, bots, cyborgs, and ads and their influence in the election. This discussion corners around Facebook, Instagram and the Internet Research Agency. We see the distinction between white and gray propaganda and useful idiots. In the end, authors tended to conclude that the hacking, doxing, and DNC leaks may have had minimal effect in the end. And, like span, politically-inflected commercial clickbait will be more of an irritant than a crisis. Instead, the authors note that “technological, institutional, and political dynamics have been interacting for over 40 years to lead the Republican Party and Republican voters to gradually become more extreme versions of themselves.” Another important point made is that while political elite and political activists have been growing apart ideologically, the majority of the public actually continue to hold moderate positions. What I find scary is the conclusion that most voters are generally disinterested in politics and ill-informed about political matters. They are “likely to make their voting choices based on a set of factors that have no relationship to the proposed agenda and competence of their favored candidate.” In many cases, they choose their favorite leaders, and then adopt the political views and stances of these leaders.The authors then segue into the origins of the asymmetry in the architecture of the American public sphere in the final part. We’re taken way back to Father Coughlin and his unfettered access by the FCC to the American public. By the 1960s, mainstream newspapers were already seen as biased by the right. Out of an interaction between technological and regulatory changes, we see emerge other mediums of communication such as cable, televangelism, and AM talk radio. Most of this benefited the conservative movement. In the discussion about the decentralization afforded by the internet and how it can support democratization, the authors mention a susceptibility to five major failure modes. Knowing these failure modes allows us to find possible solutions for our current epistemic crisis. Following this, we are given possible solutions to the matter. “The American online public sphere is a shambles because it was grafted onto a television and radio public sphere that was already deeply broken,” the authors say. Nevertheless they feel their study is both optimistic and pessimistic about the possibilities for democracy in an age of ubiquitously networked communications.

If you want original research and in depth discussion and analysis of disinformation and media network structure, this is the book for you. You can find earlier research at the Harvard Berkman Klein Center for Internet Research at Harvard, where these academics reside, and you can also find less detailed but confirming research at Knight Foundation's professional journalism research.I particularly like the factual detail and close analysis of the 2016 election, as well as the evolution of media structures over time and how they amplify or dampen misinformation.This is really a good book, and one which I will share with and recommend to others.

Very well researched and alarming. Whilst the focus of much concern has been in the Russian meddling this book makes clear it has been the decades long growth of far right media in the form of Fox News which is the rampaging Gorilla destroying U.S. democracy.

This is a complicated read, but very important for all those who want to know what's happening with news reporting and propaganda. It's a study! An important one.

This is a book about the Internet and politics. It is not a book that will tell you why Trump won, for example. That would require a more detailed look at the people who voted for him and their views.With that out of the way, you do learn about how the message is spread nowadays. even if the voters got the message from TV, the Intenet still had a role in passing along the messages learned.Whether you believe the studies and conclusions is up to you. They are explained in enough detail that you do not need to go read the original papers.As an example, the message of the phrase "deep state" starts around page 148 and goes on to page 158. Other similar phrases continue from there on (draining the swamp etc.).We have to give credit to Trump handlers, Foxnews et al for feeding these short phrases to the public. What part took them for real, and how the right and left react to the media feed is examined.I guess you have to summarize Hillary as lacking the short messages (though she warned us of Trump and Putin) and also failing to address the voters about their job and other needs. Healthcare was a touchy thing, as Obamacare was still ongoing, and actually quite expensive for those that did not get any subsidy.I keep telling myself that few of the Democrats have really grasped Twitter, and it may be too late anyway. The Trump base of some 20% and many others who voted for him are thoroughly convinced they are right. We in fact cannot tell what Trump's deeds are doing, other than in agriculture and trade. Jobs is very up in the air, and you would only find out in eight years if he helped you out.Have not perused the book on racism and nationalism yet. The index is good, so if you have favorite topics, you can read the sections on that. This book seems to be the only real well researched one on recent elections and the Internet. You do not need to read every page.Final note: The Mueller report was published after this. Although using different data and methods, you may want to compare what this book and Mueller say about the 2016 election.

This book is a data-rich, in-depth dissection of the right-wing media ecosystem. They trace the history of right-wing media beginning with Christian talk radio and up to current mass media. Understanding and identifying 'epistemic closure' has helped me navigate futile and frustrating political conversations with my Fox dependents parents. This book, the co-authors, and their research are undeniable, eye-opening, and necessary if you wish to understand the (seemingly) impenetrable right-wing media machine.

This book is a must-read for anyone wondering what's gone wrong in our country.

This is a really important book, it details the issues with the current media ecosphere in a nuanced way, with a much more developed understanding that simply talking about fake news, Russian bots and so on. Many factors contribute to the current dysfucntion in public discourse, and this book will help you to genuinely understand them rather than simply rage about it.As a Wikipedia administrator, I find this particularly useful in assessing bias and reliability in various sources.

L’article est arrivé en bien mauvais état.