THE SPECTER OF MISINFORMATION IN THE 2024 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: AN ATTEMPT FOR POLICY NARRATIVE DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Öz

This study analyses the discursive construction of misinformation in the context of the 2024 US presidential elections. Using the Public Policy Narrative Discourse Analysis (PASA) method, it analyses how misinformation is framed around three main narratives: The crisis narrative presents misinformation as a systemic problem that threatens democracy; the delusion narrative argues that this threat is exaggerated and can have negative effects on democratic values; and the double-edged sword narrative emphasises that artificial intelligence offers both a risk and a solution in the production of misinformation. The study shows that digital platforms and artificial intelligence technologies offer solutions such as verification and media literacy as well as accelerating effects on misinformation processes. While the Crisis narrative legitimises technocratic and security-oriented approaches, the Delirium narrative emphasises anti-regulatory and libertarian values. The Double-edged Sword narrative, on the other hand, emphasises the search for ethical and justice-oriented balance. The study concludes by analysing the discursive frames of misinformation through the PASA method and emphasises the importance of developing more inclusive public policies through interdisciplinary and critical approaches. Key findings include the dominance of crisis rhetoric portraying misinformation as an urgent threat to democratic institutions, contrasted by skeptics who argue its impact is overstated and risks diverting focus from systemic issues. The study advocates for balanced narratives, leveraging PNDA’s iterative approach to dismantle harmful frames and foster inclusive public discourse. Ultimately, it underscores the need for interdisciplinary strategies to address misinformation's complex socio-political impacts.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Misinformation
• Policy Narrative Discourse Analysis (PNDA)
• Post-Truth Politics Digital Platforms
• US Elections

ABD 2024 BAŞKANLIK SEÇİMLERİNDE YANLIŞ BİLGİNİN HAYALETİ: BİR KAMU POLİTİKASI ANLATISI SÖYLEM ANALİZİ DENEMESİ

Öz

Bu çalışma, 2024 ABD Başkanlık seçimleri sürecinde yanlış bilginin nasıl bir kamu politikası anlatısı olarak inşa edildiğini incelemektedir. Yanlış bilgi, yalnızca bilgi eksikliği ya da yanlış anlamadan ibaret değildir; demokratik süreçleri, toplumsal değerleri ve yurttaşlık kavrayışlarını etkileyen söylemsel bir mücadele alanıdır. Çalışmada, Kamu Politikası Anlatısı Söylem Analizi (PASA) yöntemi kullanılarak, Kriz, Hezeyan ve İki Tarafı Keskin Kılıç anlatıları çözümlenmiştir. Her bir anlatı, farklı normatif önceliklerle belirlenen değer setleri ve eylem çağrıları üretmektedir. Kriz Anlatısı, teknokratik müdahaleleri ve uzman bilgisini vurgularken; Hezeyan Anlatısı, ifade özgürlüğü ve bireysel hakları öncelemektedir. İki Tarafı Keskin Kılıç Anlatısı ise, teknolojik risk ve fırsatlar arasında denge kurma arayışındadır. Çalışma, yanlış bilginin söylemsel inşasının yalnızca bilgi politikalarıyla sınırlı kalmadığını; aynı zamanda demokratik normların ve toplumsal düzen tahayyüllerinin yeniden şekillendiği bir alan olduğunu göstermektedir.Çalışmanın temel bulguları arasında; demokrasiyi tehdit eden acil bir kriz olarak yanlış bilgi retoriğinin baskın olması, bununun karşısında etkisinin abartıldığı ve sistemik sorunlardan dikkati saptırabileceği görüşünü savunan şüphecilerin varlığı bulundurmaktadır. Çalışma, zararlı çerçeveleri yıkmak ve kapsayıcı bir kamusal söylem geliştirmek için PASA’nın dengeli anlatılar üretme potansiyeline dikkat çekmektedir. Sonuç olarak, yanlış bilgilendirmenin karmaşık sosyo-politik etkilerini ele almak için disiplinler arası stratejilere ihtiyaç olduğu vurgulanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yanlış bilgi
• Kamu Politika Anlatısı Söylem Analizi (PASA
• Hakikat Sonrası Siyaset
• Dijital Platformlar
• ABD seçimleri

Kaynakça

1. Acerbi, A. (2018). Cognitive attraction and online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5, 1-7.
2. Adam, D. (2024). Misinformation might sway elections—But not in the way that you think. Nature, 630(8018), 807-809. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01696-z
3. Allen, J. ve Rand, D. (2024, 30 Eylül). Combating Misinformation Runs Deeper Than Swatting Away ‘Fake News’. Scientific American.
4. Bardach, E. (2000). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
5. Benkler, Y., Faris, R. ve Roberts, H. (2018). Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics. Oxford University Press.
6. Bergmann, E. (2020). Populism and the politics of misinformation. Safundi, 21(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/17533171.2020.1783086
7. Brashier, N. M. (2024). Fighting misinformation among the most vulnerable users. Current Opinion in Psychology, 57, 101813. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101813
8. Chesney, R. ve Citron, D. K. (2018, 14 Temmuz). Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security. SSRN Scholarly Paper, Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3213954

9. Citron, D. ve Chesney, R. (2019). Deep Fakes: A Looming Challenge for Privacy, Democracy, and National Security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753.
10. Cobb, R. W. (2006). Agenda setting and the construction of policy problems. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 523-537.
11. Cook, J., Ecker, U. ve Lewandowsky, S. (2015). Misinformation and How to Correct It. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences içinde (ss. 1-17). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0222
12. Cook, J., Ecker, U., ve Lewandowsky, S. (2017). “Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the post-truth era”. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6:353-69.
13. Czarniawska, B. (2004). Narratives in Social Science Research. SAGE Publications. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://methods.sagepub.com/book/narratives-in-social-science-research adresinden erişildi.
14. D’Ancona, P. (2017) Post-truth: The new war on truth and how to fight back. London: Ebury Press.
15. Del Vicario, M., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., ve others. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. PNAS, 113(3), 554-559.
16. Dunn, W. N. (1981). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17. Ecker, U., Roozenbeek, J., van der Linden, S., Li Qian, T., John, C., Naomi, O. ve Stephan, L. (2024). Misinformation poses a bigger threat to democracy than you might think. Nature. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01587-3 adresinden erişildi.
18. Erdogan, E. e Uyan Semerci, P. (2020). Hakikat Sonrası Tartışmalarının Gerçek Olmayan Varsayımlarını Ele Almak: Akıl, Bilim ve Demokrasi Karşıtlığı. Pasajlar Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(4).
19. Erdoğan, E. ve Paabort, H. (2024). A More Youth-Centered Policy Development Perspective in NEET Policies. F. Simões ve E. Erdogan (Ed.), NEETs in European rural areas: Individual features, support systems and policy measures içinde (ss. 89-113). Cham: Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-45679-4_6
20. Erdoğan, E., Uyan Semerci, P., Eyolcu Kafalı, B., & Çaytaş, Ş., (2022). İnfodemi ve Bilgi Düzensizlikleri: Kavramlar, Nedenler ve Çözümler . İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
21. Fairclough, N. (1995) Media discourse. London: Edward Arnold, pp. 9-14.
22. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7, 177-197.
23. Farkas, J. and Schou, J. (2018) ‘Fake news as a floating signifier: Hegemony, antagonism and the politics of falsehood’, Javnost - The Public, 25(3), pp. 298-314.
24. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1-22.
25. Flaxman, S., Goel, S. and Rao, J.M. (2016) ‘Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(S1), pp. 298-320.
26. Foucault, M. (1979). Governmentality”. Ideology and Consciousness, 6, 5-21.
27. Gorman, L. ve Levine, D. (2024). The ASD AI Election Security Handbook. German Marshall Fund of the United States. https://www.gmfus.org/news/asd-ai-election-security-handbook adresinden erişildi.
28. Guess, A., Nagler, J. ve Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Science advances, 5(1), 4586.
29. Guterman, D. (2024, 29 Mayıs). AI and the 2024 Elections. Ash Center. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://ash.harvard.edu/articles/ai-and-the-2024-elections/ adresinden erişildi.
30. Habermas, J. (1989) The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hall, S. (1997) Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. London: Sage.
31. Hampton, G. (2004). Enhancing Public Participation Through Narrative Analysis. Policy Sciences, 37, 261-276. Harsin, J. (2015) ‘Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention economies’, Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(2), pp. 327-333.
32. Inserra, D. (2024, 12 Kasım). Misinformation Is Not the Election Boogieman. CATO Instıtute. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.cato.org/blog/misinformation-not-election-boogieman adresinden erişildi.
33. Jacobs, K. (2006). Discourse Analysis and its Utility for Urban Policy Research. Urban Policy and Research, 24, 39-52.
34. Jones, M. D. ve McBeth, M. K. (2010). A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329-353.
35. Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.
36. Lewandowsky, S. (2024). Truth and democracy in an era of misinformation. Science, 386(6717), eads5695. doi:10.1126/science.ads5695
37. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Cook, J., van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J. ve Oreskes, N. (2023). Misinformation and the epistemic integrity of democracy. Current opinion in psychology, 54, 101711. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101711
38. Linegar, M., Sinclair, B., Linden, S. van der ve Alvarez, R. M. (2024, 24 Ekim). Prebunking Elections Rumors: Artificial Intelligence Assisted Interventions Increase Confidence in American Elections. arXiv. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.19202
39. Mahadevan, A. (2024). “Election Misinformation Is Rampant. Here’s How to Avoid It”. Poynter (blog). 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2024/election-misinformation-is-rampant-heres-how-to-avoid-it/ adresinden erişildi
40. Martin, Z., Jackson, D., Trauthig, I. ve Woolley, S. (2024). Political Machines: Understanding the Role of AI in the U.S. 2024 Elections and Beyond. Center for Media Engagement. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://mediaengagement.org/research/generative-ai-elections-and-beyond/ adresinden erişildi.
41. McIntyre, L. (2018) Post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
42. Mesquita, E. B. de, Canes-Wrone, B., Hall, A. B., Lum, K., Martin, G. J. ve Velez, Y. R. (2023). Preparing for Generative AI in the 2024 Election: Recommendations and Best Practices Based on Academic Research. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/publications/preparing-generative-ai-2024-election-recommendations-best-practices adresinden erişildi.
43. Mitchell, L., Tuke, J. ve Humphries, M. (2024). Elon Musk has turned X into a globally influential media platform – and there’s more to come. The Conversation. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde http://theconversation.com/elon-musk-has-turned-x-into-a-globally-influential-media-platform-and-theres-more-to-come-243377 adresinden erişildi.
44. Nelson, K. ve West, D. M. (2024). Foreign influence operations in the 2024 elections. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.brookings.edu/articles/foreign-influence-operations-in-the-2024-elections/ adresinden erişildi.
45. Norden, L., Panditharatne, M. ve Harris, D. (2024). Multiple Threats Converge to Heighten Disinformation Risks to 2024 Elections. Brennan Center for Justice. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/multiple-threats-converge-heighten-disinformation-risks-2024-elections adresinden erişildi.
46. Pariser, E. (2011) The filter bubble: What the internet is hiding from you. New York: Penguin Press.
47. Pasquetto, I. V., Lim, G. ve Bradshaw, S. (2024). Misinformed about misinformation: On the polarizing discourse on misinformation and its consequences for the field. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-159
48. Pennycook, G. ve Rand, D. G. (2019). Fighting misinformation on social media using crowdsourced judgments of news source quality. PNAS, 116(7), 2521-2526.
49. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Duke University Press.
50. Stone, D. (1988). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
51. Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo Chambers and Internet Culture. University of Chicago Press.
52. Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., … Nyhan, B. (2018). Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3144139
53. Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C. ve Tucker, J. A. (2021). Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15(1), 84-113. doi:10.1111/sipr.12077
54. van der Linden, S. (2024). Disinformation Threatens Global Elections. Psychology Today. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-dilemmas/202402/disinformation-threatens-global-elections adresinden erişildi.
55. van Dijk, T.A. (1998) Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: Sage.
56. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D. ve Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. doi:DOI: 10.1126/science.aap9559
57. Wardle, C. ve Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an Interdisciplinary Framework for Research and Policy Making. Council of Europe. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339031969_INFORMATION_DISORDER_Toward_an_interdisciplinary_framework_for_research_and_policy_making_Information_Disorder_Toward_an_interdisciplinary_framework_for_research_and_policymaking adresinden erişildi.
58. West, D. M. (2024). How disinformation defined the 2024 election narrative. Brookings Institute. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-disinformation-defined-the-2024-election-narrative/ adresinden erişildi.
59. West, J. D. ve Bergstrom, C. T. (2021). Misinformation in and about science. PNAS, 118. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1912444117?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAiA0rW6BhAcEiwAQH28Ii4ShlQgDPneVyBQ6QtcWJ7wAd_wsGbzELseunTFXIQhBFqTpK7v6xoCe1wQAvD_BwE adresinden erişildi.
60. Williams, D. (2024a). How Dangerous is Misinformation? Conspicuous Cognition. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/how-dangerous-is-misinformation?utm_medium=web adresinden erişildi.
61. Williams, D. (2024b). “Misinformation Poses a Smaller Threat to Democracy than You Might Think”. Conspicuous Cognition. 25 Kasım 2024 tarihinde. https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/misinformation-poses-a-smaller-threat?utm_medium=web adresinden erişildi.
62. Williams, D. (2024c). “The Confused Crusade against Online Misinformation”. Conspicuous Cognition. 25 Kasım tarihinde 2024 https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/the-confused-crusade-against-online adresinden erişildi
63. Wodak, R. (2014). Critical discourse analysis. In The Routledge companion to English studies (pp. 302-316). Routledge.
64. World Economic Forum. (2024). Global risks report 2024. 25 Kasım 2024 https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/global-risks-report-2024 adresinden erişildi.