Chapter 5
The legitimation of conspiracy theories through manipulation
The case of climate lockdowns
This chapter explores the manipulation of discourse on Twitter at the basis of the climate lockdown
conspiracy theory. By analysing a dataset of tweets supporting the existence of climate lockdowns, the chapter looks
at how the categories traditionally employed to define manipulation in language are applied when manipulation takes
place in digital discourse. The new media is characterised by the expansion and re-elaboration of the classic dynamics
of textual production and interpretation, and this is particularly evident when digital and semiotic affordances are
used to manipulate discourse. The analysis of the climate change conspiracy theory proves that the architecture and
affordances of social media allow, or even encourage, or at least quietly
endorse, the legitimation of discourse through manipulation, especially news discourse.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The “Climate lockdown” conspiracy theory
- 3.Manipulation in (and of) online discourse
- 4.Theoretical framework and methodology
- 5.Data
- 6.Analysis
- 7.Discussion
- 8.Conclusions
-
Notes
-
References
References (51)
References
Bastos, Marco T., and Dan Mercea. 2019. The
Brexit Botnet and User-generated Hyperpartisan News.” Social Science Computer
Review 37 (1): 38–54.
Bednarek, Monika, and Helen Caple. 2012. News
Discourse. London: Continuum.
Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The
Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Benkler, Yochai, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts. 2018. Network
Propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American
politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad. 2009. Register,
Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boyd, Danah, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan. 2010. “Tweet,
Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on
Twitter.” In 2010 43rd Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.
Bruns, Axel. 2008. Blogs,
Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall. 2003. “Language
and Identity.” In A Companion to Linguistic
Anthropology, edited by Alessandro Duranti, 369–394. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing
Political
Discourse. London: Routledge.
Cinelli, Matteo, Gabriele Etta, Michele Avalle, Alessandro Quattrociocchi, Niccolò Di Marco, Carlo Valensise, Alessandro Galeazzi, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2022. “Conspiracy
theories and social media platforms.” Current Opinion in
Psychology 47 (101407).
Douglas, Karen M., Joseph E. Uscinski, Robbie M. Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chee Siang Ang, and Farzin Deravi. 2019. “Understanding
Conspiracy Theories.” Advances in Political
Psychology 40 (1): 1–34.
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. “Intertextuality
in critical discourse analysis.” Linguistics and
Education 4/3–4: 269–293.
Fairclough, Norman. 1993. Discourse
and Social
Change. London: Wiley.
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language
and Power. Second
edition. London: Longman.
Gardner, David. 2022. Covid-19.
The Conspiracy Theories. London: John Blake Publishing.
Garimella, Venkata Rama Kiran, and Ingmar Weber. 2017. “A
Long-Term Analysis of Polarization on
Twitter.” In Proceedings of the International AAAI
Conference on Web and Social
Media 11: 528–531.
Gold, Nicolas. 2020. “Using
twitter data in research: Guidance for researchers and ethics
reviewers.” University College London. [URL]
Guardian. 2020. “The Guardian view
on the climate and coronavirus: global warnings.” The
Guardian, 12 April
2020, [URL]
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical
Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: Perspectives on Immigration
Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Highfield, Tim. 2016. Social
Media and Everyday
Politics. Cambridge: Polity.
Jaworska, Sylvia, and Tigran Sogomonian. 2020. “After
we #VoteLeave we can #TakeControl: political bonding and imagined collectives on Twitter before the Brexit
vote.” In Reference and Identity in Public
Discourses, edited by Ursula Lutzky, and Minna Nevala, 181–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kauk, Julian, Helene Kreysa, and Stefan R. Schweinberger. 2021. “Understanding
and countering the spread of conspiracy theories in social networks: Evidence from epidemiological models of
Twitter data.” PLOS ONE, August 12, 2021.
KhosraviNik, Majid. 2017. “Right
Wing Populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo Chambers.” Insight
Turkey 19 (3):53–68.
KhosraviNik, Majid. 2018. “Social
Media Techno-Discursive Design, Affective Communication and Contemporary
Politics.” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social
Sciences 11: 427–442.
Kilgariff Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz, and David Tugwell, 2004, The
Sketch Engine. In “Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX
International Congress.” Lorient, France: 105–116.
Krzyżanowski, Michał. 2016. “Recontextualisation
of Neoliberalism and the Increasingly Conceptual Nature of Discourse: Challenges for Critical Discourse
Studies.” Discourse &
Society 27 (3): 308–321.
Maharasingam-Shah, Eisha, and Pierre Vaux. 2021. “‘Climate
Lockdown’ and the Culture Wars: How Covid-19 Sparked a New Narrative Against Climate
Action.” Institute for Strategic Dialogue
(ISD), 18 October
2021. [URL]
Mazzucato, Mariana. 2020a. “Avoiding
a Climate Lockdown.” Project Syndicate, 22 September 2020. [URL]
Mazzucato, Mariana. 2020b. “Opinion:
We Need to Act Boldly Now if we are to Avoid Economy-wide Lockdowns to Halt Climate
Change.” Marketwatch, 23 September 2020. [URL]
Oxford City
Council. 2022. “Joint statement from
Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council on Oxford’s traffic
filters.” December 7,
2022. [URL]
Puschmann, Cornelius. 2015. “The
Form and Function of Quoting in Digital Media.” Discourse, Context &
Media 7: 28–36.
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse
and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism and
Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak. 2009. “The
Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA).” In Methods for
Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd revised edition), edited
by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.
Reyes, Antonio. 2011. “Strategies
of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions.” Discourse
&
Society 22 (6): 781–807.
Sanovich, Sergey, Denis Stukal, and Joshua A. Tucker. 2018. “Turning
the Virtual Tables: Government Strategies for Addressing Online Opposition with an Application to
Russia.” Comparative
Politics 50 (3): 435–482.
Unger, Johann Wolfgang, Ruth Wodak and Majid KhosraviNik. 2016. “Critical
Discourse Studies and Social Media
Data.” In Qualitative
Research (4th edition), edited by David Silverman, 277–293. London: Sage.
Uscinski, Joseph E. 2020. Conspiracy Theories. A
Primer. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of
Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse &
Society 4 (2): 249–83.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A
Multidisciplinary
Approach. London: Sage.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. “Discourse and
Manipulation.” Discourse and
Society 17 (3): 359–383.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation
in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse &
Communication 1 (1): 91–112.
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse
and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. 2019. Emotions,
Media and
Politics. Cambridge: Polity.
Williams, Jeremy. 2022. “The
Toxic Myth of the Climate Lockdown.” The Earthbound
Report, December 20,
2022. [URL]
Zappavigna, Michele. 2018. Searchable
Talk. Hashtags and Social Media
Metadiscourse. London: Bloomsbury.
Zappavigna, Michele. 2022. “Social
Media Quotation Practices and Ambient Affiliation: Weaponising Ironic Quotation for Humorous Ridicule in
Political Discourse.” Journal of
Pragmatics 191: 98–112.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.