By Maria Ravani,
We are surely living in an interesting era of (mis)information and interconnectivity. The amount of information circulating the Internet is unprecedented and the boundaries between truth and lies are more blurred than ever before. This apparent in politics, environmental issues, and daily life troubles. As humans, we feel the need to know the “truth” about our world and other people around us, due to our biological instinct of fear for the unknown. That is where the “experts” come into the equation.
Fact-checking organizations pop up in almost every country and nowadays it looks like uncovering fake news has become a profitable hobby / job. From debunking rumors that circulate social media to following step by step a public conversation and searching to verify every single statement. An interesting recent example of such attempts is the political debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump for the upcoming presidential elections. Both parties came on strong, throwing accusations at each other and trying to prove to the viewers that the opponent is the devil in disguise. From killing babies to immigrants eating pets and accusations about dismantling abortion rights, bloodbaths, and worst inflammation rates ever, it felt like an almost (not) funny, COVID-era conversation.
2021 is not so far away after all. The QAnon conspiracy theories, endorsed by far-right media, the storming of the Capital on January 6th, and the polarized climate that completely engulfed American society a few years ago may seem like a nightmare of the past, but it is not. At least not when you have familiar faces rallying for the presidency of the USA. And it is really interesting to examine the way that both participants decided to conduct themselves in this political “smackdown”.
On one side, we had Trump’s claims that the USA is experiencing the worst inflammation ever (not like the crash of 1929 ever existed) to information that in Ohio (Springfield) immigrants from Haiti abduct and eat their neighborhood pets! That claim is not even the most hilarious part of this story, especially if you consider that the “immigrant abduct pets” narrative went so far, that the police in Springfield felt the need to create a new website, debunking these fall claims about immigrants and providing information about how the local community has tried to provide the non-native population with opportunities and shelter. The inflammation point is also a sour one for all (current and past) candidates, but also an easy point to make in a political debate since most politicians recognize that the majority of their voters are unaware of specific economic statistics – even if their everyday life is impacted.
On the other hand, Kamala Harris also tried to play the ex-president’s game, just in a more sophisticated manner. Firstly, by taking out of context a comment made by Trump in one of his rallies about “bloodbath” if the results of the elections are not what he expects ( he essentially said that if he was not elected, he could not take measures regarding the impact of offshoring on the American auto industry, with catastrophic results for Americans – thus the word “bloodbath”) and then saying that if Trump was re-elected, he would sign a national ban regarding abortions, which the former President has repeatedly said that he will not do. Not that he gleefully supports abortion rights, but his thesis is that states will have the jurisdiction to decide (also controversial, but less totalitarian). Harris also said that a new Trump administration means implementation of “Project 2025”, a quite controversial and far-right inspired playbook, full of conservative and quite dangerous measures regarding immigration, abortion rights, tackling of “racism against whites”, criminalization of pornography, and more. Trump again has declared that he has nothing to do with that project nor is he planning to implement any of these measures, statements that Harris chose to ignore.
So, as the old saying goes, in the era of television and social media, you are what you state you are. What you say, is what goes until someone else comes around and calls you out on your bluff. But even then, most people weaponising fake news for their cause, have a way of twisting words and turning narratives.
Are false information going to be one of the biggest threats of modern democracy?
How dangerous is it to normalize utilizing fake and sometimes ridiculous claims
about people or events in order to dominate a conversation?
How can such claims be used in politics during an Internet dominated era where everything can be checked and almost all can be seen?
Witnessing a political debate regarding the governance of one of the biggest powers in the planet right now is almost breath-taking. But realizing that both participants use wrong and misleading figures as “facts” in order to take down the opponent, is just plain terrifying. Mostly because it reflects their perspectives and ultimately their respect for the viewers and thus their voters. Until November one thing is for sure: Only one will be the best in faking it, until they actually make it…
References
- Who won the Harris-Trump presidential debate? BBC.com. Available here
- Early polls say Harris won the presidential debate. ABC news. Available here
- CNN Flash Poll: Majority of debate watchers say Harris outperformed Trump onstage. Edition CNN. Available here
- Trump rules out another presidential debate against Harris. BBC news. Available here
- Harris vs. Trump: Who is leading the polls? Reuters. Available here
- Fact-checking Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s 1st presidential debate. ABC News. Available here
- FACT FOCUS: A look at false and misleading claims made during Trump and Harris’ debate. AP News. Available here
- Fact-checking 55 suspect claims, mostly Trump’s, in debate with Harris. Washington Post. Available here
