I spent the last week in Germany. As usual when I go back home I try to talk to as many people as possible to get their views on certain issues. One of them: #Brexit and the #ConservativeLeadershipRace
What follows is a short thread on Germany’s harsh home truths...
First off, a mini-methodology. The place I hail from is fairly average for (West) Germany 🇩🇪. Semi-rural, most people employed in the “Mittelstand”, traditional values, but slightly skewed towards the left (social democrats) politically.
All of the following should be treated as small-n, non-representative insights. So take them with a large pinch of 🧂. Still with me? Ok👌here we go...
First off, here’s how much Germans care about Brexit:
They don’t, really.
At least not much.
Most people I talked to didn’t follow Brexit at all, apart from accidentally hearing about it in the news from time to time. The same was true for the Conservative leadership race.
No one was in favour of the EU re-negotiating or granting the UK special treatment. Many still dislike the concessions to the UK under Thatcher.
Variations of “Who do they think they are?” & “We have to think about the EU” were the responses I heard most in this context.
When asked, Brexit is described as a massive act of self-harm which no one can understand. And the last 3 years seem to have cost the UK all its credibility and reputation.
“You simply can’t trust them. One day they say one thing, the next day another.” (M, ~57, craftsman)
Given the signals coming from England since the referendum, support for the UK remaining in the EU seems to have sunk to an all-time low.
“I’m sad to see them go and I’m sorry for Remainers and the Scots but I don’t think it would be good to have them in.” (M, ~25, 👮♂️)
Who knows if the EU will grant the UK another extension in October. If it were for the Germans I met, they wouldn’t.
“What’s the point? It hasn’t led to anything and they’ll just waste it again”, as my grandpa remarked.
The leadership contest is seen by many as a waste of time with a pre-determined outcome: Boris Johnson.
Asked about a Johnson premiership people were blunt: “We as EU can deal with him but for the UK he will be disastrous”. Johnson was mainly described as a liar, & “mini-Trump”.
Most people seemed genuinely irritated why anyone would want him as a PM. Most British politicians aren’t well known over here. Many don’t even know who Corbyn is.
With Boris Johnson, that’s different. He’s known - but for all the wrong reasons.
Mostly seen as an exercise in pointlessness/backstabbing/party over country. Ppl think time should be used to prepare for Brexit/find out what UK wants, not as a rat race to replace May.
Overall, there was a strong sense of Brexit-fatigue. When I asked what people care about most, not a single one answered Brexit. Instead ppl listed:
- German domestic politics
- climate change
- state of the economy
- future of EU, influence of the radical-right
/ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1️⃣ People perceived news labeled as AI-generated as less trustworthy, even though they did not evaluated these articles as less accurate/more biased.
2️⃣ Those who already trust news a lot & know more about how journalism works are more affected by the AI labels.
3️⃣ People who don't trust news much or aren't very knowledgeable about journalism don't seem to change their trustworthiness perception much, even with AI labels.
4️⃣ Where sources are provided alongside the text, AI-labels do not seem to reduce trust in the content
Knowing the Guardian (and looking at the size of the investigation with many news organisations involved) we will likely get more information in the coming days.
But whenever a company claims "We can flip" elections, I get immediately skeptical.
Reminds me of this piece I wrote in the aftermath of the Cambridge Analytica scandal which looked at the rhetoric of these companies and the US political consultancies @CasMudde mentions: Lots of grand claims, very little evidence of big effects.
Disinformation is now firmly entrenched in various academic disciplines & well-funded by various actors. Journalists continue to display a keen interest not least given a multitude of crises which regularly bring the topic back into focus.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. Disinformation studies—the loose assortment of researchers, activists, journalists, & policymakers devoted to the study of the creation, distribution & reception of misleading information—has had positive & negative effects.
⁉️Does the ‘Infodemic’ make much sense? Did we really live through one?
📝In our new paper for New Media & Society, @evoluchico and I take these ideas to court.
💥 Our answers: No & No
In early 2020, the term ‘infodemic’ was suddenly everywhere after a WHO situation report stated the following…
Two weeks later, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said “We are not just fighting an epidemic; we’re fighting an infodemic. Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus, and is just as dangerous”.
A flurry of papers, reports & news articles followed.
I see Cambridge Analytica is trending again because of this Channel 4 documentary exposing the Trump campaign’s attempted deterrence of Black voters in 2016.
Unpopular opinion: This documentary has some big structural flaws.
Had they bothered to ask, @davekarpf would have told them that this is “just” negative advertising (which is still despicable), but not structural voter suppression (eg closing polling stations, etc.). More in this short thread here:
What makes this such a great piece of scholarship is not only the great effort behind it (rivalling some investigative journalism) but that it allows us to see RT through the eyes of those who work(ed) for it & puts an emphasis on the internal, organizational dynamics.
🔑-bits:
- RT is seen as an instrument of state policy to meddle in other country’s politics
- RT is a ‘counterpunch to the West’s anti-Russian narratives and political positions’
- RT shaped by the practices of Soviet media controls of old