Disinformation in Times of Disaster and Crisis

Öz

This research is based on 3 consecutive disaster (pandemic, earthquake and flood) in Turkey. During these successive disasters, it has been observed that the traditional and social media handling of similar news has changed. The political stance, in particular, affects the way the news is reflected, causing the elements of disinformation to increase and the target audience to be affected by the views of the news encoder. Although the political stance displayed by the traditional media tools is clear, the political views and goals are not always clear because the news flow in the new media is carried out in the context of personal accounts. Within the scope of the research, 3 examples were selected for each disaster shared by the Turkish people on Twitter, one of the social media tools, during 3 disasters. Similar news in the traditional media was also examined and a comparison was made between the two media channels. The semiotic method was used in the study. The semiotic method was used in the study. One of the possible results of this study is the finding that disinformation elements change according to the way the news is presented in social media and traditional media. On the other hand, despite the fact that the news in social media is produced by people, it has been noticed that sometimes these news are more accurate than traditional media and that the disinformation desired to be created in the traditional media is tried to be prevented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Earthquake
• Flood
• Pandemic
• Semiotic
• Türkiye
• Twitter

Kaynakça

1. Aldwairi, M., Alwahedi, A. (2018), Detecting Fake News in Social Media Networks. Procedia Computer Science, 141(1), 215–222.
2. Allcott, H., Gentzkow, M. (2017), Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211-236. DOI: 10.1257/jep.31.2.211
3. Altıntop, M., Bak, G. (2022), Yeni medya ve öz denetim. Journal of World of Turks, 14(3), 321-338. DOI: 10.46291/ZfWT/140320.
4. Aydın, A.F. (2023), Sosyal Medyada Dezenformasyon ve Manipülasyon: 2023 Kahramanmaraş Depremi Örneği. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(5), 2603-2624. DOI: 10.15869/itobiad.1283358
5. Colliander, J. (2019), “This is fake news”: Investigating The Role Of Conformity To Other Users’ Views, When Commenting on and Spreading Disinformation in Social Media. Computers in Human Behavior, 97(1), 202–215.
6. Culler, J. (1986), Saussure. USA: Fontana Press. Digital 2022: Another Year of Bumper Growth. (2022, January 26). We Are Social: https://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2022/01/digital-2022-another-year-of-bumpergrowth-2/. (Last Accessed: 10.04.2023)
7. During, S. (2001), The Cultural Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
8. Erkan, G., Ayhan, A. (2018), Siyasal iletişimde dezenformasyon ve sosyal medya bir doğrulama platformu olarak Teyit Org. Akdeniz İletişim Dergisi (AKİL), 30, 202–223. DOI: 10.31123/akil.458933.

9. Fallis, D. (2015), What is disonformation?. Library Trends, 63(3), 401-426. DOI: 10.1353/lib.2015.0014.
10. Fetzer, J. H. (2004). Disinformation: The use of false information. Minds and machines, 14, 231-240. DOI: 10.1023/B:MIND.0000021683.28604.5b.
11. Guess, A. M., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A. (2020), Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science Advances, 6(14). DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau4586.
12. Innis, H. A. (1951), The Consequences of Information: Institutional Implications of Technological Change. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
13. Karsai, M., Cattuto, C., Lehmann, S. (2020), Viral misinformation: The role of homophily and polarization. EPJ Data Science, 9(1), 1-18. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1411.2893.
14. Khan, M., Jain, A., Chouhan, R., ve Sheikh, S. (2020), Fake news identification on social media. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 9(1), 365-370. DOI: 10.17577/IJERTV9IS010183.
15. Kirby, P. (2023). https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64968972.
16. Ireton, C., Posetti, J. (2022). Gazetecilik, ‘Sahte Haber’ ve Dezenformasyon: Gazetecilik Eğitimi ve Alıştırmaları için El Kitabı. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000380323 (Last Accessed: 19.02.2024)
17. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M. Schwarz, N., Cook J. (2020), Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13 (3), 104-131. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018.
18. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K., Cook, J. (2020), Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the "Post-Truth" Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(4), 461-468. DOI: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2017.07.008.
19. Lewandowsky, S. (2021), Climate change disinformation and how to combat it. Annual Review of Public Health, 42, 1-21. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102409.
20. Lemonde (2023, February 16). https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2023/02/14/who-calls-turkey-s-earthquake-europe-s-worst-natural-disaster-in-a-century_6015735_4.html. (Last Accessed: 11.04.2023)
21. Mackenzie, D., Wajcman, J. (1999), The Social Shaping of Technology. London: Open University Press.
22. McLuhan, M., (1965), Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York/London, McGraw-Hill Paperback.
23. McLuhan, M. (1962), The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Canada: University of Toronto Press.
24. McLuhan, M., McLuhan, E. (2003), Understanding Media: Extensions of Man: Critical Edition. Berkeley: Gingko Press.
25. Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G. (2019), The Implied Truth Effect: Attaching Warnings to a Subset of Fake News Stories Increases Perceived Accuracy of Stories Without Warnings. Management Science, 67(11), 4944-4957. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.007.
26. Pennycook, G. (2020), The Implied Truth Effect: Correcting Political Misinformation Through Affirmation of the Opposite. Psychological Science, 31(2), 174-186. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2019.3478
27. Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G. (2021), Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(14). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1806781116.
28. Postman, N. (1985), Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. London: Penguin Books.
29. Postman, N. (1992), Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. London: Vintage Books.
30. Saussure, F. (2016), Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Roy Harris. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
31. Şahin, A., Bayrak, T. (2022), İletişim Perspektifinden Çanakkale’nin Değerleri. İstanbul: Kriter Yayınevi.
32. Tandoc, E. C. Jr., Lim, Z. W., Ling, R. (2018), Defining “Fake News” Digital Journalism, 6 (2), 137-153, DOI: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
33. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., Aral, S. (2018), The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. DOI: 10.1126/science.aap9559
34. Wittel, A. (2012), Digital Marx: Toward a Political Economy of Distributed Media. Triple Cognition Communication Co-operation, 10(2): 313-333. DOI: 10.31269/vol10iss2pp313-333
35. Wardle C., Derakhshan H. (2017), Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy making. Council of Europe Report DGI 09.
36. Yegen, C. (2018), Doğru haber alma hakkı ve sosyal medya dezenformasyonunu Doğruluk Payı ve Yalansavar ile tartışmak. Erciyes İletişim Dergisi, 5(4), 101-121. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17680/erciyesiletisim.390324