An essay in syllabus form, this critical disinformation studies syllabus expands our definition of what counts as disinformation
To demonstrate how these principles play out in practice, we created a Critical Disinformation Studies syllabus as a provocation to disinformation researchers to rethink many of the assumptions of our nascent field. While the syllabus is fully-functional as is—it could be implemented in its current form for a graduate level seminar—it is also an essay in syllabus form. We draw from a very broad range of scholarship, much which falls outside of conventional studies of “disinformation,” to expand our understanding of what “counts” as disinformation.
We provide five case studies—crime and anti-Blackness; Japanese incarceration; Black liberation; the AIDS crisis; and the trope of the Welfare Queen—to demonstrate the historical complicity of media, the state, and the political establishment in strategically spreading inaccurate information to maintain structural inequality. We argue that disinformation is a key way in which whiteness in the United States has been reinforced and reproduced, in addition to heteronormativity and class privilege.
Each section includes recommended readings. Some sections include audiovisual material and primary sources. The intended audience for this syllabus is graduate students, faculty, and researchers interested in “disinformation” writ large. It can be adapted for undergraduate audiences as well.
While this is an interdisciplinary syllabus, its contributors are primarily from Communication and Media Studies. This syllabus is open-source and may be used by anyone for any scholarly or educational purpose without attribution. Please drop us a line if you have suggestions for readings or topics.
Three caveats:
- This syllabus focuses primarily on the United States, reflecting the state of the field. We recognize the limitations of this and encourage scholars to think through how false information is conceptualized across different political, social, and cultural contexts. Further, disinformation as it spreads in the U.S. is also connected to broader geopolitical and transnational dynamics.
- The cases, examples, and sources included in this syllabus represent a range of approaches and perspectives. We recognize that citations, information, and knowledge production are political acts and inclusion does not necessarily entail endorsement of ideas and sources. Rather, we make this offering as a means to encourage ongoing critical and multi-faceted reflections of power and history in the study of disinformation.
- Foregrounding history and context does not imply that contemporary social platforms are blameless. We support scholarly and activist efforts to hold large technology companies accountable. However, we wish to recognize that social platforms are but one part of a larger ecosystem, and to see state, politician, and legacy media companies equally taken to task for their roles in spreading disinformation.
Moral outrage and shared moral norms energize networked, coordinated harassment online
Networked, coordinated harassment is done by all kinds of communities, from partisan political groups to fandoms. Though the origins of harassment are not necessarily identity-based, the resulting attacks use race, gender, sexuality, religion, and other attributes as vectors, making it more likely that people with marginalized identities will be harassed in ways that are intersectional/more harmful for individuals with multiple marginalized identities.
The key point is that while harrassers draw from identity-based stereotypes in their attacks, they understand their actions as morally justified and based in the target’s actions, rather than their identity. Marwick offers two examples, “I’m not against Anita Sarkeesian because I’m a misogynist/anti-feminist, but because she’s a scammer/liar,” and “I’m not against the 1619 project/Nikole Hannah Jones b/c I’m racist/my white ID is threatened but because she’s a liar who hates white people and white children.” In these cases, the speaker justifies their harassment of women by defining the woman as immoral and themselves therefore as moral actors for policing their immoral behavior.
Documenting women's contributions to society faces an uphill battle against users' interpretation of Wikipedia's "notability" requirements
Gender is one of the most pervasive and insidious forms of inequality. For example, English-language Wikipedia contains more than 1.5 million biographies about notable writers, inventors, and academics, but less than 19% of these biographies are about women. To try and improve these statistics, activists host “edit-a-thons” to increase the visibility of notable women. While this strategy helps create several biographies previously inexistent, it fails to address a more inconspicuous form of gender exclusion. Drawing on ethnographic observations, interviews, and quantitative analysis of web-scraped metadata, this article demonstrates that biographies about women who meet Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion are more frequently considered non-notable and nominated for deletion compared to men’s biographies. This disproportionate rate is another dimension of gender inequality previously unexplored by social scientists and provides broader insights into how women’s achievements are (under)valued.