QANON DEBUNKED

Social media, conservative news networks exacerbate, popularize right-wing conspiracy theories and disinformation

President Gerald Ford was a stooge. At least, actor Chevy Chase’s portrayal of former U.S. president President Ford painted him as an unfit leader in American television show Saturday Night Live (SNL)’s first presidential debate episode which aired in 1976. Throughout the episode, Chase depicted an incumbent president with a needle sticking out of his left arm, representing his dubious claims about foreign policy with Poland. Jimmy Carter, a peanut farmer and Washington outsider with only four years in politics represented a charismatic southerner with enough charm to rally a nation. President Carter later carried the election by 57 electoral votes, ending a decisive and polarizing election.

In 2018, Dr. Bill Horner sought to answer a unique, yet calculable question: was President Carter’s win in the 1976 election affected by SNL’s episode of presidential debate? Dr. Horner, professor of political science at the University of Missouri — Columbia, concluded yes, there was a discernible correlation between the episode airing and Carter’s win.

“A lot of people tuned in and watched [SNL] and it was a really close election,” Dr. Horner said. “Places where SNL did well in the ratings were places where it was close; you could plausibly argue that their portrayal of Gerald Ford had an influence on enough people to make a difference in the outcome of the election.”

Dr. Horner’s publication, called “Saturday Night Live and the 1976 Presidential Election: A New Voice Enters Campaign Politics,” fundamentally represents the issues the U.S. federal government and mainstream media face today. As the line between red and blue becomes more distinct, entertainment media has become more polarized as well. A 2019 Pew Research Center report concluded political polarization between Americans reached an all-time high. What’s more significant than an increasingly polarized population is the impacts that follow; Dr. Horner said. When Americans polarize, they tend to only read into their own beliefs. “You can point to cable news networks like MSNBC and Fox,” Dr. Horner said. “They’re drawing the audiences that are already drinking the Kool-Aid. There are not a lot of liberals that tune into Fox News anymore.” Fox News, like other conservative news networks, makes the “Kool-Aid” themselves. Tucker Carlson Tonight, a show that runs on Fox News most nights of the week, gives a platform to debunked conspiracy theories like QAnon, which falsely concludes the 2020 presidential election was stolen and the Democratic party is a front for satanic pedophiles. QAnon is often associated with 4chan, an anonymous image board, where the conspiracy theory originated to deceive or “troll” people. Freshman James Castilow said he believes QAnon serves no purpose other than spreading false information, and chooses to stay away from its believers. “I make sure to

distance myself and not at all associate with anyone who is right wing and believes in the very racist and anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which is QAnon,” Castilow said. “I have publicly denounced conspiracy theories like that, as it’s very disgusting that people can believe in such harmful things and just spread so much misinformation. QAnon is simply fear mongering at the expense of Jewish individuals.” The Poynter Institute, which evaluates the legitimacy of political facts, has repeatedly debunked QAnon since 2018. Junior Gram Coalier, has believed in conspiracy theories other than QAnon, specifically a conspiracy involving Adolf Hitler surviving World War II. In the past, Coalier said after little research, it was easy to decipher false QAnon claims.

“At first I was somewhat skeptical, as one should be,” Coalier said. “But then recently I was going through some declassified FBI documents and saw that it’s a documented and investigated theory.”

When people exclusively read into literature that intensifies their own beliefs and legitimizes conspiracy theories which may be false, news networks can use it to their advantage. Dr. Horner said news companies and social media algorithms cater toward keeping readers on their websites, which, in return, increase advertising revenue and profits.

“YouTube works this way, particularly,” Dr. Horner said. “When I go look up videos about stuff that I want to clip and use in a lecture, [YouTube] thinks I’m interested in that stuff.”

While news networks may purposefully promote false information to increase viewer count, social media algorithms indiscriminately cater media based on user interest. Dr. Horner said this phenomenon inadvertently institutionalizes people to believe in conspiracy theories. “Somebody will watch a QAnon-inspired video, and they’re only watching because they heard about it. And they’re kind of curious about it, but then YouTube algorithm feeds you more of those videos and you watch them,” Dr. Horner said. “The more you watch them, the more you start to think, ‘well, what if that’s true,’ and you watch more, and you watch more and it becomes this sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.”

QAnon shows how easily conservative news companies can turn a blind eye to false information, or more importantly, how they value viewer engagement over providing accurate and honest information. Dr. Horner said the reason conservative media values spreading inaccurate information can be traced back to President Richard Nixon, who attacked the media for having a left-wing bias.

“Richard Nixon set lots of precedents for use of the media that both Democrats and Republicans have emulated over the years,” Dr. Horner said. “Nixon spent the entire 1960s saying that the media was out to get him and was full of lies and was sick news and all of that kind of stuff.”

Despite this, choosing a media network, conspiracy theory or even a politician to support comes down to human nature. Dr. Horner said even when someone is posed with an argument contrary to their own, they tend to believe in their debunked beliefs even more.

“[Americans have] become so partisan in recent years, that we’re not only not influenced by when we’re presented factual data that is contrary to what we believe, we dig in even deeper. And we say, ‘I don’t care what those facts say,’” Dr. Horner said. “There’s interesting studies conducted in recent years that demonstrate that giving people counterfactual information just causes them to dig in deeper.”