Many influencers are used in the run-up to the elections, with the intention of reaching young people in particular. This costs around €37 million, or 8 cents per European citizen. How do you see this as a communication scientist?
“Influencers are the new gatekeepers for young people. Using them to inform young people about the elections is good, but there isn’t much on the actual content. That should change, so that young people know what they’re voting for. Themes like immigration or farmers’ dissatisfaction could be brought under the spotlight. But TikTok videos are only 30 seconds long, making it difficult to explain such complex themes.
“My advice would therefore be to invest in ‘explainers’: videos in which content creators explain complex topics in a simple way. That would encourage young people to delve deeper into political issues. At the same time, their understanding of the way the European Union works would increase.”
Disinformation and fake news are hot topics – especially given the current geopolitical climate. For example, the European Union has already expressed concerns about the spread of Russian disinformation through advertisements, the suppression of political content and ways to monitor the circulation of online content. What’s your view on this?
“In all cases, it’s worrying that false information is being spread, regardless of where it comes from. Large companies like Google and Meta have a lot of power, and that makes it difficult to control them. The fragmented media landscape has exacerbated this. For example, everyone used to watch the news. Now, that’s no longer necessarily true.
“There are sometimes labels or disclaimers on certain messages that warn the reader that the source has not been verified. But this also promotes the ‘implied truth effect’. This means that if there is no disclaimer with a message, people will assume that the information or news is true. It would therefore be helpful to increase people’s media resilience or literacy, so that they pay more attention to the source, for example. Influencers can also help with that.
“Research also shows that people attach more value to what they consider good and what they believe in. So if you’re in favour of a political party, you’re more likely to believe that information.”
You also study the electoral consequences of making compromises. Can you tell us more about that?
“Compromises are a great asset for democracy. People are not necessarily against them, but as soon as they relate to specific topics that could potentially be negative for them, things are different. “NIMBY” or “Not In My Back Yard” is then what we come across. People want to use certain facilities, but they don’t want to be inconvenienced by them. Take the installation of wind turbines, for example. Research also shows that people expect that there’s more they can get out of it.
“Fragmentation in politics also plays a role in this, with polarisation as a characteristic trait. Collaboration is now much more political than it was a few years ago, when politics was much more pragmatic. It’s now no longer so much about the issues that parties could commit to, but more about whether they want to be associated with another party at all. They ask fewer policy questions and more identity questions, such as: ‘Do you want to belong?’ If you can always make compromises, there is no deeper underlying conflict. Deep ideological values eroded somewhat in the 1990s, which is why it was easier to make compromises then. Perhaps now that those ideological conflicts are showing up again, it will make it more difficult for political parties to reach any kind of consensus.”
In your research, you use computer algorithms and numerical analysis. Can this be used to analyse misleading information, for example?
“Analysing misleading information is possible. We have done this before by classifying gossip, conspiracies, misinformation and fake news, to name a few. By misinformation, we mean that the truth is in doubt. And by fake news, we mean a news item that is clearly not ‘real news’ – for example, through stylistic features like the use of three question marks. However, the effects of misinformation are more difficult to map because they are more difficult to measure.”
You’re also co-director of the Resilience, Security and Civil Unrest (ReSCU) Lab. Can you tell us more about that?
“Security, resilience for the future and civil unrest are important topics in Dutch society and in the European elections. These issues are very much intertwined. For example, polarisation can mean that someone with a different background doesn’t feel at home in the Netherlands. In addition, we know that there is discrimination in the labour market, which means that young people can more quickly end up in a crime ring, which then creates a safety problem and promotes civil unrest.
“At the ReSCU Lab, we delve deeper into these three topics in collaboration with social partners who we engage from the start of the research and ask them to contribute their ideas. Our goal is to narrow the gap between theory and practice and make a real impact.”