A fake news for each

Several times, in 2020 and 2021, I moderated a series of online focus groups at INSCOP (in the pandemic context and immediately post-pandemic it was the safest solution for participants) with a strong component related to the study of fake news and disinformation. One of the small discoveries of that qualitative study was that people are aware of the existence and danger of disinformation, both regarding its spontaneous forms and systematic campaigns, but at the same time believe that they are less vulnerable to it, are convinced that they can distinguish truth from lies and can select trustworthy sources. Many subjects suspiciously approach the mantra of the three sources and are also convinced that they verify dubious information in this way. Beyond the fact that verifying from three independent sources is not that simple (how do we know they are independent, given that social networks and, in fact, all forms of media circulate almost anything that can generate an audience very quickly and without much attention?), the most subtle part of fake news is its ability to make you not identify the respective information as dubious, thus needing to be verified. Then, this psychological mechanism appears whereby, although at the moment of receiving the respective news I realize that something is wrong with it, after a while (a few months, for example), this evaluation fades in memory, as does the exact content of the information. And I only remember that it was something about some people who were presented as doing some things – there is a very high probability that in this way, fake news will achieve its goal. Because fake news is not simply false news, but represents the exploitation of an entire communication context and timing.

As the Romanian says, a disaster never comes alone. The same goes for fake news and disinformation. They come abundantly, more and confuse. Some are about trivial matters, others sordid, others simply absurd, some reasonable, others downright strategic. Perhaps the information transmitted this way is not even a priority. It is more about cultivating distrust, revolt, conspiratorial thinking, uncertainty, exploiting manifest or latent social cleavages. Because, by the nature of mass communication in the internet age and social networks, transmitting such a message repetitively, or thousands of such messages, costs almost nothing, compared to how much it cost 30 years ago to orchestrate a campaign to manipulate public opinion through print or audiovisual media.

And yes, several quantitative and qualitative studies conducted by INSCOP (in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2025, etc.) confirm that public opinion in Romania has a strong conspiratorial dimension. You might say that victims of disinformation are recruited from this segment. Theoretically yes, but this is a more complicated discussion. What is certain is that, regarding the focus groups with which we started the discussion, conspiratorial thinkers are convinced that they can distinguish disinformation from information and that others are the ones who are misinformed. Practically, the communication paradigm of this segment is that the state, authorities, large corporations, mainstream communication are part of the real big conspiracy… Therefore, participating in alternative communication – which in many cases overlaps with what we call belief in conspiracy theories, for example, or vulnerability to fake news – is not a purely cognitive exercise. Therefore, the anti-mainstream discourse can be contradictory, even incoherent, and its followers are not bothered by this.

All of this is reconfirmed by the data published yesterday, here, by INSCOP. Almost 55% of Romanians are convinced that they can distinguish real information from false information, and this on heavy and distant subjects (security, war, international relations). It is logical to expect that people with a lower level of education, or those who are less accustomed to working with data, information, those lacking intellectual concerns, etc. will be more vulnerable to disinformation. Very likely, but what the data from yesterday also shows is that more educated, younger people and, it can be said, more center-right are more convinced than others that they can distinguish disinformation from reality. Why? Because they are better educated, more digitally literate, more accustomed to working with information. Which is correct up to the point where the illusion of control over the information you receive appears and the belief that fake news is visible to those who possess the attributes mentioned above. There is fake news for everyone.