KRİZ DÖNEMLERİNDE DİJİTAL DEZENFORMASYONLA MÜCADELE: TÜRKİYE’DE DOĞRULAMA MERKEZLERİ ÜZERİNDEN YANLIŞ BİLGİ TÜRLERİNİN İSRAİL–FİLİSTİN ÇATIŞMASI BAĞLAMINDA İNCELENMESİ

Öz

Kriz dönemlerinde dijital medya ortamlarında dolaşıma giren yanlış ve yanıltıcı bilgiler, kamusal algının şekillenmesinde önemli bir rol oynamaktadır. Özellikle savaş ve silahlı çatışma süreçleri, bilgi akışının hızlandığı ve doğrulanmamış içeriklerin yoğun biçimde yayıldığı bağlamlar olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Bu çalışma, kriz dönemlerinde dijital dezenformasyonla mücadeleyi, Türkiye’de faaliyet gösteren doğrulama merkezleri üzerinden yanlış bilgi türleri bağlamında incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, 2023 yılında yaşanan İsrail–Filistin çatışmasını örnek olay olarak ele almakta ve bu süreçte beş doğrulama merkezi tarafından yayımlanan toplam 1161 doğrulama içeriğini analiz etmektedir. Çalışma, karma yöntem araştırma yaklaşımıyla tasarlanmıştır. Nicel boyutta içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılarak yanlış bilgi içerikleri yedi farklı tür altında sınıflandırılmış; nitel boyutta ise doğrulama uzmanlarıyla yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla doğrulama süreçleri incelenmiştir. Bulgular, kriz dönemlerinde doğrulama faaliyetlerinin ağırlıklı olarak yanlış veya yanıltıcı bilgilere tepki üretme ekseninde şekillendiğini ve en yaygın yanlış bilgi türlerinin hatalı ilişkilendirme ve çarpıtma olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, Türkiye’de dijital dezenformasyonla mücadele literatürüne ampirik katkı sunmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital dezenformasyon
• yanlış bilgi türleri
• doğrulama merkezleri
• kriz dönemleri
• dijital medya

FIGHTING DIGITAL DISINFORMATION IN TIMES OF CRISIS: AN ANALYSIS OF TYPES OF FALSE INFORMATION THROUGH FACT-CHECKING ORGANIZATIONS IN TURKEY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ISRAEL–PALESTINE CONFLICT

Öz

During periods of crisis, false and misleading information circulating in digital media environments plays a significant role in shaping public perception. Wars and armed conflicts, in particular, represent contexts in which information flows intensify and unverified content spreads rapidly. This study aims to examine the fight against digital disinformation during crises through fact-checking organizations in Türkiye, with a specific focus on types of misinformation. The research adopts the 2023 Israel–Palestine conflict as a case study and analyzes a total of 1,161 fact-checking reports published by five fact-checking organizations operating in Türkiye. A mixed-methods research design was employed. In the quantitative phase, content analysis was conducted to classify misinformation into seven distinct types, while the qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with fact-checking professionals to explore verification practices during crisis periods. The findings reveal that fact-checking activities during crises are predominantly reactive and that misattribution and distortion constitute the most common types of misinformation. By focusing on misinformation types through fact-checking practices, this study provides an empirical contribution to the literature on digital disinformation in Türkiye.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital disinformation
• misinformation types
• fact-checking organizations
• crisis periods
• digital media

Kaynakça

1. Allcott, H., & Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(2), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.2.211
2. boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, his-tory, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
3. Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 global inventory of organised social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute. https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/cybertroops2019/
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
5. Castells, M. (2010). The rise of the network society (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
6. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
8. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content mode-ration, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

9. Graves, L. (2018). Deciding what’s true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. Columbia University Press.
10. Graves, L., & Cherubini, F. (2016). The rise of fact-checking sites in Eu-rope. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2016/rise-fact-checking-sites-europe/
11. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
12. Hermida, A. (2012). Social journalism: Exploring how social media is shaping journalism. The Routledge Companion to News and Journalism Studies, 309–328.
13. Hoskins, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Arrested war: The third phase of mediatization. Oxford University Press.
14. Jackson, D. (2016). Issue ownership and fake news: The agenda setting of fact-checking. Journalism Practice, 10(6), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2016.1163207
15. Klein, D. O. (2020). Reconfiguring the information ecosystem: Fake news, algorithms, and the crisis of trust. MIT Press.
16. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its metho-dology (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
17. Lazer, D. M. J., Baum, M. A., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A. J., Greenhill, K. M., Menczer, F., … Zittrain, J. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
18. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
19. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
20. Nielsen, R. K., & Graves, L. (2017). “News you don’t believe”: Audience perspectives on fake news. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://www.digitalnewsreport.org/publications/2017/news-dont-believe-audience-perspectives-fake-news/
21. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
22. Starbird, K., Arif, A., & Wilson, T. (2018). Disinformation as collaborati-ve work: Surfacing the participatory nature of strategic information operations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(CSCW), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274424
23. Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
24. Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining “fake news”. Di-gital Journalism, 6(2), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
25. Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Jour-nal, 13(1), 203–218.
26. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
27. Wardle, C. (2019). Understanding information disorder. First Draft. https://firstdraftnews.org/articles/understanding-information-disorder/
28. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-november-2017/1680764666
29. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yön-temleri (11. baskı). Seçkin Yayıncılık.