Abstract

In today’s digital media ecology, alternative narratives and conspiracies spread rapidly, and may undermine the legitimacy of journalism and reinforce polarized divides in society. In this setting, constructions of truth may greatly vary across established and alternative media. In this paper, we use a comparative qualitative content analysis in the US and the Netherlands to offer in-depth insights into how factual claims are legitimized and delegitimized by alternative versus mainstream media outlets. We put the assumption of post-factual relativism and alternative truths to an empirical test: To what extent and how do alternative versus established media construct irreconcilable versions of reality? When political disagreement is no longer founded on a shared reality, representative democracy may be severely damaged and vulnerable to undermining discourses of untruthfulness.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call