CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial Media and PoliticsMedia Influence and Politics

Disinformation in the Brazilian pre-election context: Probing the content, spread and implications of fake news about Lula da Silva

Open access
Dourado, Tatiana, Salgado, Susana·2021·The Communication Review
DOI 10.1080/10714421.2021.1981705
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research scrutinizes the content, spread, and implications of disinformation in Brazil’s 2018 pre-election period. It focuses specifically on the most widely shared fake news about Lula da Silva and links these with the preexisting polarization and political radicalization, ascertaining the role of context. The research relied on a case study and mixed-methods approach that combined an online data collection of content, spread, propagators, and interactions’ analyses, with in-depth analysis of the meaning of such fake news. The results show that the most successful fake news about Lula capitalized on prior hostility toward him, several originated or were spread by conservative right-wing politicians and mainstream journalists, and that the pro-Lula fake news circulated in smaller networks and had overall less global reach. Facebook and WhatsApp were the main dissemination platforms of these contents.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10714421.2021.1981705

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Very active partisan users are responsible for perceived dominance of misinformation and incivility and the polarization of social media networks.

    “It is precisely these very active partisan users that are found to be responsible for the perceived dominance of misinformation and incivility (Dourado & Salgado, 2021) and the polarization of social media networks (Kaiser et al., 2022).”

    From When debates break apart: discursive polarization as a multi-dimensional divergence emerging in and through communication (2023) · cites this paper as Dourado & Salgado, 2021

    The Spread section says influential users confer visibility on fake content and that public figures helped disseminate several fake-news items. The Discussion also links more engaged conservative networks to the fake-news stories that thrive. Neither section establishes that very active partisan users are responsible for the perceived dominance of misinformation or for incivility. The separate polarization claim is attributed to Kaiser et al., not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 56 · Cited by 23

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Albuquerque, A. (2016). Voters against public opinion: The press and democracy in Brazil and South Africa. International Journal of Communication, 10, 3042-3061.
  2. Albuquerque, A. (2017). Protecting democracy or conspiring against it? Media and politics in Latin America: A glimpse from Brazil. Journalism, 20(7), 906-923. doi:10.1177/ 1464884917738376 · DOI
  3. 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 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Al-Rawi, A. (2019). Gatekeeping Fake News Discourses on Mainstream Media Versus Social Media. Social Science Computer Review, 37(6): 687-704
  5. Araújo, B., & Prior, H. (2021). Framing political populism: The role of media in framing the election of Jair Bolsonaro. Journalism Practice, 15(2), 226-242. doi:10.1080/ 17512786.2019.1709881 · DOI
  6. Baldwin-Philippi, J. (2019). The technological performance of populism. New Media & Society, 2(2), 376-397. doi:10.1177/1461444818797591 · DOI
  7. Barberá, P., Jost, J., Nagler, J., Tucker, J., & Bonneau, R. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber? Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531-1542. doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122-139. doi:10.1177/0267323118760317 · DOI
  9. Berger, J., & Milkman, K. (2012). What makes online content viral? Strategic Direction, 28(8), sd.2012.05628haa.014. doi:10.1108/sd.2012.05628haa.014 · DOI
  10. Bimber, B. (2015). The internet and political transformation: Populism, community and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(n. 1), 133-160. doi:10.2307/3235370 · DOI
  11. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system. Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Curran, J., Seaton, J. (2010). Power Without Responsibility: Press, Broadcasting and the Internet in Britain. London: Routledge
  13. Davis, S., & Straubhaar, J. (2020). Producing antipetismo: Media activism and the rise of the radical, nationalist right in contemporary Brazil. International Communication Gazette, 82 (1), 82-100. doi:10.1177/1748048519880731 · DOI
  14. Farkas, J., Schou, J. (2018). Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism, and the Politics of Falsehood. Javnost -The Public, 25(3): 298-314
  15. Friggeri, A., Adamic, L., Eakles, D., & Cheng, J. (2014). Rumor Cascades. Eighth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media Adrien. Ann Harbor, Michigan, USA.
  16. Garrett, R., Long, J. A., & Jeong, M. S. (2019). From partisan media to misperception: Affective polarization as mediator. Journal of Communication, 69(5), 490-512. doi:10.1093/joc/jqz028 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., & Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Science, 363(6425), 374-378. doi:10.1126/ science.aau2706 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Hendricks, V., Vestergaard, M., (2019). Reality Lost: Markets of Attention, Misinformation, and Manipulation. Cham: Springer
  19. Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297-308. doi:10.1080/17512781003640703 · DOI
  20. Howard, P. N., Bolsover, G., & Bradshaw, S. (March, 2017). Junk news and bots during the U.S. Election: What were michigan voters sharing over twitter? COMPROP DATA MEMO. Oxford, UK. 1-5.
  21. Humprecht, E. (2018). Where fake news flourishes: A comparison across four Western democracies. Information, Communication & Society, 22(13): 1973-1988. doi:10.1080/ 1369118X.2018.1474241 · DOI
  22. Ibsen, M. F. (2019). The populist conjuncture: Legitimation crisis in the age of globalized capitalism. Political Studies, 67(3), 795-811. doi:10.1177/0032321718810311 · DOI
  23. Jankowski, N. W. (2018). Researching fake news: A selective examination of empirical studies. Javnost -The Public, 25(1-2), 248-255. doi:10.1080/13183222.2018.1418964 · DOI
  24. Khaldarova, I., & Pantti, M. (2016). Fake news: The narrative battle over the Ukrainian conflict. Journalism Practice, 10(7), 891-901. doi:10.1080/17512786.2016.1163237 · DOI
  25. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Los Angeles: Sage. 4th edition
  26. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B., Gaudet, H. (1948). The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press
  27. Lazer, D., Baum, M., Benkler, Y., Berinsky, A., Greenhill, K., Menczer, F., . . . Zittrain, J. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359Issue (6380), 1094-1096. doi:10.1126/science.aao2998 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Levendusky, M. (2013). Why do partisan media polarize viewers? American Journal of Political Science, 57(3): 611-623
  29. Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U., Cook, J. (2017). Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the 'Post-Truth' Era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6 (4): 353-369
  30. Marwick, A. (2018). Why do people share fake news? A sociotechnical model of media effects. Georgetown Law Technology Review, Vol. 2.2, 474-512
  31. McChesney, R. W. (2012). Farewell to journalism? Journalism Practice, 6(5-6), 614-626. doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.683273 · DOI
  32. McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 16-42. doi:10.1177/0002764218759576 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Mendonça, R. F., & Bustamante, M. (2020). Back to the future: Changing repertoire in contemporary protests. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 39(5), 629-643. doi:10.1111/ blar.13087 · DOI
  34. Nelson, J. L., & Taneja, H. (2018). The small, disloyal fake news audience: The role of audience availability in fake news consumption. New Media & Society, 20(10), 3720-3737. doi:10.1177/1461444818758715 · DOI
  35. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1-61. doi:10.1037/ xge0000465 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Pyrhönen, N., & Bauvois, G. (2020). Conspiracies beyond fake news. Produsing reinformation on presidential elections in the transnational hybrid media system. Sociological Inquiry, 90 (4), 705-731. doi:10.1111/soin.12339 · DOI
  37. Rogers, R. (2017). Foundation of digital methods: Query design. In The datafied society: Studying culture through data. Amsterdam University Press. doi:10.5117/9789462981362 · DOI
  38. Rojas, H., & Valenzuela, S. (2019). A call to contextualize public opinion-based research in political communication. Political Communication, 36(4), 652-659. doi:10.1080/ 10584609.2019.1670897 · DOI
  39. Salgado, S. (2018) Online media impact on politics. Views on post-truth politics and post- postmodernism. International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 14(3):317-331. doi:10.1386/macp.14.3.317_1x Salgado, S. (2019). Never say never . . . Or the value of context in political communication research. Political Communication, 36(4), 671-675. doi:10.1080/10584609.2019.1670902 · DOI
  40. Santos, N. (2019). The reconfiguration of the communication environment: Twitter in the 2013 Brazilian protests. [Thesis] Université Paris II-Panthéon-Assas École.
  41. Singer, A. V. (2014). Rebellion in Brazil. New Left Review, 85, 19-37.
  42. Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150-160. doi:10.1177/ 0266382117722446 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Suhay, E., Bello-Pardo, E., & Maurer, B. (2018). B. The polarizing effects of online partisan criticism: Evidence from two experiments. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23(1), 95-115. doi:10.1177/1940161217740697 · DOI
  44. Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining "Fake News." Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137-153. doi:10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143 · DOI
  45. Törnberg, P. (2018). Echo chambers and viral misinformation: Modeling fake news as complex contagion. PLOS ONE, 13(n. 9), e0203958. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0203958 · DOI
  46. Tucker, J., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., Nyhan, B. (2018). Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144139
  47. van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2-14. doi:10.17645/mac.v1i1.70 · DOI
  48. Venturini, T., Bounegru, L., Gray, J., & Rogers, R. (2018). A reality check(-list) for digital methods. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4195-4217. doi:10.1177/1461444818769236 · DOI

Authors
Dourado, T., & Salgado, S.
Affiliations
  • Fundação Getulio Vargas (BR)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
Corresponding author
Salgado, Susana
ORCID
Venue
The Communication Review
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2021-10-02
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
297-319
ISSN
  • 1071-4421 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7487
DOI
10.1080/10714421.2021.1981705
OpenAlex
W3202876562
Cited by
23
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Communication Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Funda??o para a Ci?ncia e a Tecnologia (PTDC/CPO-CPO/28495/2017, 2020.04070.CEECIND/CP1615/CT0007)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
Keywords
disinformation, fake news, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, 2018 Brazilian presidential election, pre-election period, political polarization, political radicalization, right-wing politicians, Facebook, WhatsApp, political hostility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review