The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fake News: The narrative battle over the Ukrainian conflict
Open accessAbstract
The crisis in Ukraine has accentuated the position of Russian television as the government’s strongest asset in its information warfare. The internet, however, allows other players to challenge the Kremlin’s narrative by providing counter-narratives and debunking distorted information and fake images. Accounting for the new media ecology—through which strategic narratives are created and interpreted, this article scrutinizes the narratives of allegedly fake news on Channel One, perceiving the fabricated stories as extreme projections of Russia’s strategic narratives, and the attempts of the Ukrainian fact-checking website Stopfake.org to counter the Russian narrative by refuting misinformation and exposing misleading images about Ukraine. Secondly, it analyses how Twitter users judged the veracity of these news stories and contributed to the perpetuation of strategic narratives.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Infoglut: How Too Much Information Is Changing the Way We Think and Know
Andrejevic, M. (2013) · doi:10.4324/9780203075319 · Cited by 499
Cited by
Golovchenko, Y., Buntain, C., Eady, G., Brown, M. A., & Tucker, J. A. (2020) · The International Journal of Press/Politics · doi:10.1177/1940161220912682 · Cited by 179
Fighting misperceptions and doubting journalists’ objectivity: A review of fact-checking literature
Nieminen, S., & Rapeli, L. (2019) · Political Studies Review · doi:10.1177/1478929918786852 · Cited by 150
Detecting fake news stories via multimodal analysis
Singh, V. K., Ghosh, I., & Sonagara, D. (2021) · Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.24359 · Cited by 128
Digital disinformation and emotions: exploring the social risks of affective polarization
Serrano-Puche, J. (2021) · International Review of Sociology · doi:10.1080/03906701.2021.1947953 · Cited by 69
Analyzing and distinguishing fake and real news to mitigate the problem of disinformation
Vereshchaka, A., Cosimini, S., & Dong, W. (2020) · Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory · doi:10.1007/s10588-020-09307-8 · Cited by 34
Masip, P., Suau, J., & Ruiz-Caballero, C. (2020) · Media and Communication · doi:10.17645/mac.v8i4.3146 · Cited by 25
Dourado, T., & Salgado, S. (2021) · The Communication Review · doi:10.1080/10714421.2021.1981705 · Cited by 23
“Such context-dependent conditions encourage viral dissemination (Venturini, Bounegru, Gray, & Rogers, 2018) and legitimize a battle of narratives (Khaldarova & Pantti, 2016; Marda & Milan, 2018) based on harmful content, hate speech, conspiracy, bullshit, rumors, and lies, often similar to fake…”
BackgroundZhukova, E. (2022) · Visual Communication · doi:10.1177/1470357219888673 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- Khaldarova, I., & Pantti, M.
- Venue
- Journalism Practice
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-04-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 891-901
- ISSN
- 1751-2786 (ISSN-L)
- 1751-2794
- OpenAlex
- W2338397756
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 74.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
