CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 148Misinformation and Its ImpactsNews Media Framing and Political CommunicationGender, Feminism, and Media

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Politics and porn: how news media characterizes problems presented by deepfakes

Open access
Gosse, Chandell, Burkell, Jacquelyn·2020·Critical Studies in Media Communication
DOI 10.1080/15295036.2020.1832697
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

“Deepfake” is a form of machine learning that creates fake videos by superimposing the face of one person on to the body of another in a new video. The technology has been used to create non-consensual fake pornography and sexual imagery, but there is concern that it will soon be used for politically nefarious ends. This study seeks to understand how the news media has characterized the problem(s) presented by deepfakes. We used discourse analysis to examine news articles about deepfakes, finding that news media discuss the problems of deepfakes in four ways: as (too) easily produced and distributed; as creating false beliefs; as undermining the political process; and as non-consensual sexual content. We provide an overview of how news media position each problem followed by a discussion about the varying degrees of emphasis given to each problem and the implications this has for the public’s perception and construction of deepfakes.

Overview

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 · 10.1080/15295036.2020.1832697

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Ajder H., 2019, The state of deepfakes: Landscape, threats, and impact
  2. Burkell J., 2019, First Monday, 24
  3. Chesney R., 2019, California Law Review, 107, 1752
  4. Citron D. K., 2014, Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–148 of 148

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gosse, C., & Burkell, J.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Gosse, Chandell
ORCID
Venue
Critical Studies in Media Communication
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-10-19
Volume
37
Issue
5
Pages
497-511
ISSN
  • 1479-5809 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-5036
DOI
10.1080/15295036.2020.1832697
OpenAlex
W3094359535
Cited by
148
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
FWCI
30.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Studies in Media Communication (publishedVersion)
  • Scholarship@Western (Western University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (895-2015-1002)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
Keywords
deepfakes, news framing, political manipulation, misinformation, public perception, media discourse

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