“To Tarnish the Pure and Illuminate the Tainted”: Russian Perceptions of the Potential Risks of Fake News

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article presents findings from a qualitative study of Russians’ perceptions of the potential consequences of fake news. Examining lay representations of such risk is crucial because these beliefs carry real-world implications and can shape behavior. Drawing on 119 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2024, informants problematize the prevalence of fake news and describe a broad spectrum of possible harms, which can be provisionally grouped into three classes of threats to public life: threats to social solidarity; risks related to individual well-being; and impacts on the functioning of social institutions. In the first case, participants highlight the dangers of political destabilization and the emergence of intergroup and interpersonal conflict. Risks to individual well-being are understood as the effects of fake news on people’s mental and/or physical health. Negative impacts on institutional functioning — particularly within the media sphere and electoral institutions — are discussed less intensively and with less emotional involvement. I suggest that informants assess the consequences of fake news by invoking readily available risk scripts, including scenarios of “panic” (“they are scaring us”), “division” (“they want to set us against each other”), and “manipulation”. Perceptions of disinformation risks are formed at the intersection of personal experiences of salient recent events (the COVID-19 pandemic, the onset of the Special Military Operation, and economic volatility), public debates that provide the language for problem framing and reinforce beliefs about the high prevalence of fakes, and broader socio-cultural trends such as the diffusion of therapeutic culture, polarization, and societal fragmentation. Overall, representations of the consequences of fake news are context-dependent and are often articulated through examples drawn from the current news agenda.

About the authors

Anastasia Dmitrievna Kazun

HSE University

Email: adkazun@hse.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9633-2776
SPIN-code: 9207-9760
ResearcherId: K-6835-2015
Candidate of Sociology, Senior Researcher, Laboratory for Studies in Economic Sociology, Associate Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Бирюкова С.С., Васильева Г.Г., Казун А.Д., Красильникова М.Д., Кузина О.Е., Моисеева Д.В., Назарбаева Е.А., Пишняк А.И., Халина Н.В. Барометр экономического поведения домохозяйств в России. № 3. М.: НИУ ВШЭ, 2024. URL: https://www.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/981539441.pdf (дата обращения: 18.08.2025).
  2. Казун А.Д., Малыгина Н.С. Эмоциональный опыт думскроллинга: Как справиться с негативными новостями? // Интеракция. Интервью. Интерпретация. 2024. Т. 16. № 4. С. 78–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2024.16.4.5 EDN: MYGPYR
  3. Казун А.Д. Так ли страшен фейк? Ложные новости и их роль в современном мире // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2020. № 4. С. 162–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2020.4.791 EDN: HHBOQV
  4. Петрова Д.В. Потребление новостей в сельской местности: (не)доверие и стратегии верификации информации // Мониторинг общественного мнения: Экономические и социальные перемены. 2024. № 4. С. 91–114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2024.4.2572
  5. Радаев В.В. Нестандартное потребление. М.: Издательский дом НИУ ВШЭ, 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-4131-9 EDN: PFROVD
  6. Радаев В.В. Нестандартные формы потребления: сравнительный анализ // Вопросы экономики. 2024. № 3. С. 43–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2024-3-43-72 EDN: ZEHGOV
  7. Ушкин С.Г. Не только социальные сети: каналы распространения фейковых новостей в представлениях населения // Galactica Media: Journal of Media Studies. 2024. Т. 6. № 2. С. 162–176. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46539/gmd.v6i2.460 EDN: YUXQRL
  8. Ahmed S., Rasul M.E., Cho J. (2022) Social Media News Use Induces COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Through Skepticism Regarding Its Efficacy: A Longitudinal Study from the United States. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 13. P. 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.900386
  9. Berger P.L., Luckmann T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
  10. Berry R.A., Rosenbaum J.E., Corey A.M. (2023) Weaponising #Fakenews on Twitter: Generating Flak or Critiquing the Status Quo in the Trump Era? Javnost — The Public. Vol. 30. No. 4. P. 534–550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2023.2267265
  11. Billore S., Anisimova T. (2021) Panic Buying Research: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies. Vol. 45. No. 4. P. 777–804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12669
  12. Broda E., Strömbäck J. (2024) Misinformation, Disinformation, and Fake News: Lessons from an Interdisciplinary, Systematic Literature Review. Annals of the International Communication Association. Vol. 48. No. 2. P. 139–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2024.2323736
  13. Carlson M. (2020) Fake News as an Informational Moral Panic: The Symbolic Deviancy of Social Media during the 2016 US Presidential Election. Information, Communication & Society. Vol. 23. No. 3. P. 374–388. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1505934
  14. Dalen A.V. (2019) Rethinking Journalist–Politician Relations in the Age of Populism: How Outsider Politicians Delegitimize Mainstream Journalists. Journalism. Vol. 22. No. 11. P. 2711–2728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919887822
  15. Dehghan E., Glazunova S. (2021) “Fake News” Discourses: An Exploration of Russian and Persian Tweets. Journal of Language and Politics. Vol. 20. No. 5. P. 741–760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.21032.deh
  16. Ditto P.H., Liu B.S., Clark C.J., Wojcik S.P., Chen E.E., Grady R.H., Celniker J.B., Zinger J.F. (2018) At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 14. No. 2. P. 273–291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617746796
  17. Dobber T., Metoui N., Trilling D., Helberger N., de Vreese C. (2020) Do (Microtargeted) Deepfakes Have Real Effects on Political Attitudes? The International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 26. No. 1. P. 69–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161220944364
  18. Egelhofer J.L., Boyer M., Lecheler S., Aaldering L. (2022) Populist Attitudes and Politicians’ Disinformation Accusations: Effects on Perceptions of Media and Politicians. Journal of Communication. Vol. 72. No. 6. P. 619–632. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac031
  19. Egelhofer J.L., Lecheler S. (2019) Fake News as a Two-Dimensional Phenomenon: A Framework and Research Agenda. Annals of the International Communication Association. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 97–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1602782
  20. Farkas J., Schou J. (2018) Fake News as a Floating Signifier: Hegemony, Antagonism and the Politics of Falsehood. Javnost — The Public. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 298–314. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1463047
  21. Freiling I., Stubenvoll M., Matthes J. (2023) Support for Misinformation Regulation on Social Media: It Is the Perceived Harm of Misinformation that Matters, Not He Perceived Amount. Policy & Internet. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 731–749. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.360
  22. Greene C.M., Murphy G. (2021) Quantifying the Effects of Fake News on Behavior: Evidence from a Study of COVID-19 Misinformation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol. 27. No. 4. P. 773–784. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000371
  23. Gros A.E. (2017) The Typicality and Habituality of Everyday Cognitive Experience in Alfred Schutz’s Phenomenology of the Lifeworld. Meta: Research in Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, and Practical Philosophy. Vol. 9. No. 1. P. 63–85.
  24. Gunther A.C., Storey J.D. (2003) The Influence of Presumed Influence. Journal of Communication. Vol. 53. No. 2. P. 199–215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb02586.x
  25. Hameleers M. (2020) My Reality Is More Truthful Than Yours: Radical Right-Wing Politicians’ and Citizens’ Construction of “Fake” and “Truthfulness” on Social Media—Evidence from the United States and The Netherlands. International Journal of Communication. Vol. 14. P. 1135–1152.
  26. Hameleers M., Brosius A., de Vreese C. H. (2022) Whom to Trust? Media Exposure Patterns of Citizens with Perceptions of Misinformation and Disinformation Related to the News Media. European Journal of Communication. Vol. 37. No. 3. P. 237–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231211072667
  27. Hasell A., Halversen A. (2024) Feeling Misinformed? The Role of Perceived Difficulty in Evaluating Information Online in News Avoidance and News Fatigue. Journalism Studies. Vol. 25. No. 12. P. 1441–1459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2345676
  28. Humprecht E., Esser F., Aelst P.V. (2020) Resilience to Online Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 25. No. 3. P. 493–516. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161219900126
  29. Jones-Jang S.M., Kim D.H., Kenski K. (2021) Perceptions of Mis- or Disinformation Exposure Predict Political Cynicism: Evidence from a Two-Wave Survey during the 2018 US Midterm Elections. New Media & Society. Vol. 23. No. 10. P. 3105–3125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820943878
  30. Lazer D.M.J., Baum M.A., Benkler Y., Berinsky A.J., Greenhill K.M., Menczer F., Metzger M.J., Nyhan B., Pennycook G., Rothschild D., Schudson M., Sloman S.A., Sunstein C.R., Thorson E.A., Watts D.J., Zittrain J.L. (2018) The Science of Fake News. Science. Vol. 359. No. 6380. P. 1094–1096. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
  31. Lee S., Gil de Zúñiga H., Munger K. (2023) Antecedents and Consequences of Fake News Exposure: A Two-Panel Study on How News Use and Different Indicators of Fake News Exposure Affect Media Trust. Human Communication Research. Vol. 49. No. 4. P. 408–420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqad019
  32. Lee S., Jones-Jang S.M. (2024) Cynical Nonpartisans: The Role of Misinformation in Political Cynicism during the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. New Media & Society. Vol. 26. No. 7. P. 4255–4276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221116036
  33. Lee T. (2021) How People Perceive Influence of Fake News and Why it Matters. Communication Quarterly. Vol. 69. No. 4. P. 431–453. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2021.1954677
  34. Levine T.R. (2014) Truth-Default Theory (TDT). Journal of Language and Social Psychology. Vol. 33. No. 4. P. 378–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X14535916
  35. Manjoo F. (2008) True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. Wiley: Wiley & Sons.
  36. Mazzaro K. (2023) Anti-Media Discourse and Violence against Journalists: Evidence from Chávez’s Venezuela. The International Journal of Press/Politics. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 469–492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/19401612211047198
  37. Miró-Llinares F., Aguerri J. C. (2023) Misinformation about Fake News: A Systematic Critical Review of Empirical Studies on the Phenomenon and Its Status as a “Threat”. European Journal of Criminology. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 356–374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370821994059
  38. Park C.S. (2024) Why People Rely on Fact-Checkers? Testing Theses of “Perceived Severity of Fake News” and “Disappointment in News Media”. Journalism Studies. Vol. 25. No. 1. P. 1–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2289878
  39. Rojas H. (2010) “Corrective” Actions in the Public Sphere: How Perceptions of Media and Media Effects Shape Political Behaviors. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 343–363. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edq018
  40. Ross A., Vaccari C., Chadwick A. (2022) Russian Meddling in U.S. Elections: How News of Disinformation’s Impact Can Affect Trust in Electoral Outcomes and Satisfaction with Democracy. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 25. No. 6. P. 786–811. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2022.2119871
  41. Schiff K.J., Schiff D.S., Bueno N.S. (2024) The Liar’s Dividend: Can Politicians Claim Misinformation to Evade Accountability? American Political Science Review. Vol. 119. No. 1. P. 71–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423001454
  42. Schütz A. (1953) Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 1–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2104013
  43. Slovic P. (2010) The Feeling of Risk: New Perspectives on Risk Perception. London; New York: Earthscan.
  44. Stroud N.J., Lee J.K. (2013) Perceptions of Cable News Credibility. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 67–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.646449
  45. Sude D.J., Sharon G., Dvir-Gvirsman S. (2023) True, Justified, Belief? Partisanship Weakens the Positive Effect of News Media Literacy on Fake News Detection. Frontiers in Psychology. Vol. 14. P. 1–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1242865
  46. Surowiecki J. (2004) The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few. New York: Anchor Books.
  47. Taylor P. M. (2013) Munitions of the Mind a History of Propaganda from the Ancient World to the Present Era. Manchester; New York: Manchester University Press.
  48. Tong C., Gill H., Li J., Valenzuela S., Rojas H. (2020) “Fake News Is Anything They Say!” — Conceptualization and Weaponization of Fake News among the American Public. Mass Communication and Society. Vol. 23. No. 5. P. 755–778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2020.1789661
  49. Van Aelst P., Strömbäck J., Aalberg T., Esser F., de Vreese C., Matthes J., Hopmann D., Salgado S., Hubé N., Stępińska A., Papathanassopoulos S., Berganza R., Legnante G., Reinemann C., Sheafer T., Stanyer J. (2017) Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge for Democracy? Annals of the International Communication Association. Vol. 41. No. 1. P. 3–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2017.1288551
  50. van der Linden S., Panagopoulos C., Roozenbeek J. (2020) You Are Fake News: Political Bias in Perceptions of Fake News. Media, Culture & Society. Vol. 42. No. 3. P. 460–470. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443720906992
  51. van der Meer Toni G.L.A., Hameleers M., Ohme J. (2023) Can Fighting Misinformation Have a Negative Spillover Effect? How Warnings for the Threat of Misinformation Can Decrease General News Credibility. Journalism Studies. Vol. 24. No. 6. P. 803–823. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2187652

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Канал журнала в Telegram: t.me/inter0000

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).