Abstract
The discursive construction of a populist divide between the ‘good’ people and ‘corrupt’ elites can conceptually be linked to disinformation. More specifically, (right-wing) populists are not only attributing blame to the political elites, but increasingly vent anti-media sentiments in which the mainstream press is scapegoated for not representing the people. In an era of post-truth relativism, ‘fake news’ is increasingly politicized and used as a label to delegitimize political opponents or the press. To better understand the affinity between disinformation and populism, this article conceptualizes two relationships between these concepts: (1) blame attributions to the dishonest media as part of the corrupt elites that mislead the people; and (2) the expression of populist boundaries in a people-centric, anti-expert, and evidence-free way. The results of a comparative qualitative content analysis in the US and Netherlands indicate that the political leaders Donald Trump and Geert Wilders blame legacy media in populist ways by regarding them as part of the corrupt and lying establishment. Compared to left-wing populist and mainstream politicians, these politicians are the most central players in the discursive construction of populist disinformation. Both politicians bypassed empirical evidence and expert knowledge whilst prioritizing the people’s truth and common sense at the center stage of honesty and reality. These expressions resonated with public opinion on Facebook, although citizens were more likely to frame mis- and disinformation in terms of ideological cleavages. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the role of populist discourse in a post-factual era.
Highlights
Populism and the uncontrolled spread of mis- and disinformation have been regarded as key threats to the functioning of representative democracy
This does not mean that populism should be equated with the politics of disinformation, it does indicate that the central stylistic and framing elements of populism can give rise to a type of argumentation in which people-centric experiences are preferred over expert knowledge and empirical evidence
We extend the conceptualization of the interconnectedness of populism and misand disinformation beyond their shared political consequences by focusing on two types of discursive relationships: (1) scapegoating the media as part of a populist communication strategy; and (2) populist disinformation as a discursive construction of fact-free, anti-elitist, and people-centric discourse
Summary
Populism and the uncontrolled spread of mis- and disinformation have been regarded as key threats to the functioning of representative democracy. Populism typically focuses on conflict and the people’s feelings and experiences whilst circumventing or attacking empirical evidence and expert analyses. This does not mean that populism should be equated with the politics of disinformation, it does indicate that the central stylistic and framing elements of populism can give rise to a type of argumentation in which people-centric experiences are preferred over expert knowledge and empirical evidence. Populist communication and mis- and disinformation may have similar political consequences. By shifting blame to the alleged ‘corrupt’ elites whilst emphasizing the centrality of the ordinary people, populist communication may polarize the electorate—cultivating an in-
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
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