ASCoR, the research institute of the UvA’s Department of Communication Science, investigates such political phenomena. Communication scientist Michael Hameleers explains their impact: ‘Actually, these attacks on the establishment (or “the elite”), such as the media or politics, are ongoing. This makes people lose faith in democracy or certain institutions. It creates polarisation – or the idea of it – in society: mutual understanding and respectful dialogue seem to become increasingly difficult. It makes it less easy for people to engage with different points of view in a nuanced way. On the other hand, talking about problems like fake news can contribute to mistrust as well. If everything can be called fake, what can we still believe?’

Fake news media

In recent years, there have been plenty of examples of political campaigns centred on negativity and conflict. Hameleers: ‘Since 2015, Trump and his claims about “fake news” have been highly influential. He articulated many people’s feeling that the mainstream media do not represent the people.’ Meanwhile, that idea has also become widespread in Europe. ‘The idea that politicians and journalists are part of the elite is also prevalent in the Netherlands. Distrust of institutions is growing and people are looking for alternative voices, as well as for politicians who they believe are telling the truth.’

From anti-establishment to establishment

The current government in the Netherlands is a concrete example of this: two of the four governing parties, the PVV and the BBB, clearly present themselves as anti-establishment and against the powers that be. But then, how does it work when a party suddenly becomes part of the establishment itself by going into government?

‘Anti-establishment logic is flexible. If a party becomes part of the government, there are always other institutions and types of elite that can be held responsible, such as judges or the EU. Still, the question of whether to govern or not can be an internal struggle for populist parties. When they end up governing, parties often present this as a necessary step to stand up for the interests of ordinary citizens. That way, they stay true to their anti-establishment image and can continue to emphasise that they’re fighting the establishment.’       

Social media: the main culprit?

When it comes to disinformation and declining trust in politics, social media are often identified as the ones to blame. According to Hameleers, however, the legacy media also play a big role in this: ‘On social media, there are no “gatekeepers” or journalistic codes of conduct, so there’s basically no filter. But the legacy media have shown in recent years that they don’t always take a critical stance towards populist politics either. At the end of the day, a medium mainly wants to attract an audience, and negativity and conflict are simply seen as newsworthy and things that score well. In that sense, the legacy media act as mouthpieces.’ 

Focus on the negative

While ASCoR is part of several media literacy partnerships, it has also started its own broader initiative around disinformation. That initiative focuses on improving our resilience to disinformation and trust in ‘real’ information. ‘We don’t merely want to educate people about disinformation, but also show them how to find information that is reliable.’

UvA Communication scientists have concluded that, in some areas of political communication, there is still room for further study. ‘We’ve always had a pretty strong focus on the negative, on the threat,’ Hameleers says. ‘In the future, we also hope to take a really good look at alternative approaches to journalism. For example, what happens when politics and journalism seek more interaction with audiences and communities? And how can we make reliable information more accessible and appealing? Currently, most of our focus is still on debunking problematic information. However, paying so much attention to such information also legitimises it in a way. Nurture leads to growth, so perhaps it’s better sometimes to shift attention to more constructive approaches in political communication and journalism.’