A tug of war between weaponized disinformation and meaningful dialogue

Communication is an integral part of everyday life. At its very core, it is a process that allows the exchange of ideas, facts, feelings, and cultures with the goal of creating a common understanding of people and their circumstances. It helps answer questions as to why people are the way they are and what their motivations are for doing what they do – whether as individuals or as a group. In human history, this has evolved from oral communication among contemporaries to the earliest methods of literacy to today’s information superhighway. Over millennia of development, communication’s objective has remained the same, to foster harmony among people and pass on knowledge through generations.

Its importance in maintaining international peace cannot be overstated. What it can do to create cohesion within a society, it can also do to promote understanding across borders. Putra (2020) has discovered that language geared toward peace and nonviolence plays a major role in conflict resolution. The researcher has found that while no singular model for resolving conflict exists and everything depends on context and circumstances, the purposeful use of communication in achieving harmony does not change. Instead, it is a vital part of any negotiation process to express the context and interests of all parties involved.

Weaponizing communication for political gain

And yet, various communication channels and methods have now been weaponized by political actors in destabilizing social order and fomenting dissent toward governments and hate toward other cultures inside and outside of a country’s territorial frontiers. Nazi propaganda, one of history’s most notable abuse of communication, was employed to win the support of millions to transition Germany from a democracy to a dictatorship, facilitate the ethnic cleansing of European Jews, and instigate a world war. Hitler viewed propaganda not as an objective study of truth but as a political tool to serve the Third Reich (Holocaust Encyclopedia, n.d.).

In the Philippines, never has any presidential election been so muddied with disinformation and political division than the 2016 vote. Social media marketing went from a careful practice of positive messaging around a product, service, or person to professional trolling, stoking civil unrest in exchange for money. The Duterte campaign specifically chose social media as a primary mode of communication with the electorate because the camp had no funds for above-the-line advertising, and it was “essentially free.” Having successfully won the office through disinformation tactics, he went on to serve as president for a six-year term and create a long list of diplomatic crises for the country (BBC, 2016). In the battle for the same office between Marcos and Robredo, Devlin (2022) uncovered disinformation ecosystems designed to sway the results of the Philippine elections that year, where career trolls were hired by politicians to spread falsehoods in their favour. Different candidates, same antics.

Nazi propaganda, one of history’s most notable abuse of communication, was employed to win the support of millions to transition Germany from a democracy to a dictatorship, facilitate the ethnic cleansing of European Jews, and instigate a world war. Hitler viewed propaganda not as an objective study of truth but as a political tool to serve the Third Reich.

In Myanmar, Facebook played an undeniable role in promoting ethnic violence against Rohingya Muslims (Amnesty International, 2022). Through a perfect storm of lack of access to other Internet sources and free Facebook access offered through local carriers, Meta’s algorithm created an echo chamber of monolithic political views for users and led to heightened fear and hate of a social minority, eventually facilitating the genocide of over 20,000 Rohingya (Alam and Kamruzzaman, 2020).

Disinformation as a political weapon

In the context of modern-day geopolitics, Russia, in its uncalled-for aggression toward Ukraine, has employed the communication tools at its disposal to misinform its citizens and the rest of the world and justify the war effort. Instead of the invasion that it is, The Kremlin frames the war as a counterterrorism operation to rally Russian support, calling it “the people’s war.” This tactic also serves to delegitimize Ukraine’s right to sovereignty on the global stage and mitigate Western support (Barnes, 2022).

This operation has wreaked havoc not only within the region but across the globe, with anti-Ukraine sentiment growing in countries as far as the United States and Canada. Disinformation campaigns have given the American Far Right more than enough talking points to dissuade the government and the people from supporting the Ukrainian effort, so much so that Tucker Carlson’s pro-Kremlin arguments are often rebroadcast on Russian airwaves (Dutkiewicz and Stecula, 2022). While 66% of Americans still support Ukraine in its quest to regain lost territory, the remaining 34% is still too large a chunk to foster any kind of support for what can only be seen as a clear-cut case of Russia overstepping its boundaries (Temnycky, 2022).

Digital dialogue to combat disinformation

However, all hope is not lost. The spread of misinformation might have grown exponentially with the rise of communication technologies, but these innovations have also enabled dialogue, creating a shift from a rigid hierarchical approach to a multilateral conversation (Abbott et al., 2014). In the Russia-Ukraine conflict, we are seeing on-the-ground footage as the war happens and disrupts normal life in the country. This perspective would have never been possible without the proliferation of mobile communications. Amid all the propaganda, people can decide for themselves how they weigh in on international security issues. In UN peacekeeping missions, the global organization leverages the communications revolution to not only share information with the public but also gather input from them as key stakeholders of their own circumstances. This means that the process has transformed from an exercise in public information to a dynamic communication effort. Effectively, strategic communication has been elevated from an afterthought to an operational necessity. As part of the UN’s modernization in response to the new technological landscape, communications personnel are given a seat at the decision-making table as an important element of mission control (Sherman and Trithart, 2021).

Communication theories that explain disinformation

Several theories can help explain this phenomenon and steer the conversation in the right direction. Agenda setting theory posits that the media is responsible for determining what is newsworthy and encouraging salience transfer. By focusing public attention on geopolitical conflict through balanced coverage, mass media helps control the narrative and provides viewers an accurate picture of global events. Cultivation theory argues that media outlets shape audiences’ sense of reality, outlining the importance of impartial coverage in moulding public perception of important issues. Organizations like the media and the UN can employ communication accommodation theory to tailor their messages based on the motivations of their audiences and use the elaboration likelihood model to instigate an attitude shift on international relations matters through logical thought processes.

References

Abbott, K. et al. (2014) Communication for Peacebuilding: Practices, Trends and Challenges. Search for Common Ground, United State Institute of Peace. 

Alam, S., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2020, August 12). Myanmar ‘underreported’ 2017 Rohingya killing: Watchdog. Anadolu Ajansı. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/myanmar-underreported-2017-rohingya-killing-watchdog/1938803  

Amnesty International. (2022, September 29). Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya; meta owes reparations – new report. Amnesty International. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/  

Barnes, J. E. (2022, October 26). Russia intensifies its propaganda campaign against Ukraine. The New York Times. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/26/us/politics/russia-propaganda-dirty-bomb.html  

BBC. (2016, December 7). Trolls and triumph: A digital battle in the Philippines. BBC News. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38173842  

Devlin, K. (2022, May 7). Philippines election: ‘politicians hire me to spread fake stories’. BBC News. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-61339293  

Dutkiewicz, J., & Stecuła, D. (2022, July 4). Why America’s far right and far left have aligned against helping Ukraine. Foreign Policy. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/04/us-politics-ukraine-russia-far-right-left-progressive-horseshoe-theory/  

Putra, F. D. (2020). Harmony communication in peace language and conflict resolution. International Journal of Communication and Society, 2(2), 88-95. Retrieved from https://pubs2.ascee.org/index.php/ijcs/article/view/134 

Sherman, J., & Trithart, A. (2021, August). Strategic communications in UN Peace Operations: From an afterthought … International Peace Institute. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.ipinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/IPI-RPT-Strategic-Communications.pdf  

Temnycky, M. (2022, November 8). U.S. perception of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Wilson Center. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/us-perception-russias-invasion-ukraine  

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (n.d.). Nazi Propaganda. Holocaust Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 20, 2023, from https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-propaganda