CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,504Misinformation and Its ImpactsMedia Influence and PoliticsSocial Media and Politics

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation, and Radicalization in American Politics

Open access
Benkler, Yochai, Faris, Robert, Roberts, Hal·2018
DOI 10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This book examines the shape, composition, and practices of the United States political media landscape. It explores the roots of the current epistemic crisis in political communication with a focus on the remarkable 2016 U.S. president election culminating in the victory of Donald Trump and the first year of his presidency. The authors present a detailed map of the American political media landscape based on the analysis of millions of stories and social media posts, revealing a highly polarized and asymmetric media ecosystem. Detailed case studies track the emergence and propagation of disinformation in the American public sphere that took advantage of structural weaknesses in the media institutions across the political spectrum. This book describes how the conservative faction led by Steve Bannon and funded by Robert Mercer was able to inject opposition research into the mainstream media agenda that left an unsubstantiated but indelible stain of corruption on the Clinton campaign. The authors also document how Fox News deflects negative coverage of President Trump and has promoted a series of exaggerated and fabricated counter narratives to defend the president against the damaging news coming out of the Mueller investigation. Based on an analysis of the actors that sought to influence political public discourse, this book argues that the current problems of media and democracy are not the result of Russian interference, behavioral microtargeting and algorithms on social media, political clickbait, hackers, sockpuppets, or trolls, but of asymmetric media structures decades in the making. The crisis is political, not technological.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 999

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Benkler, Y., Faris, R., & Roberts, H.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Publisher
Oxford University PressNew York
Published
2018-10-18
DOI
10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001
OpenAlex
W4213327489
Cited by
1,504
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 269 · 2025: 260 · 2024: 206 · 2023: 198 · 2022: 165 · 2021: 173 · 2020: 172 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 1
FWCI
116.61
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Directory of Open access Books (OAPEN Foundation) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump, disinformation, media polarization, conservative media, Steve Bannon, Fox News, Mueller investigation, counter-narratives, media and democracy, public sphere

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