Questioning facts and the truthfulness of political opponents has been an integral part of the Czech political environment in recent years. Alena Kluknavská, who recently won the prestigious GA CR President Award, and her team analyzed politicians' statements on migration. In the following interview, she discusses the award-winning research, post-factual politics and how truth is contested in the Czech Republic.
How do people contest truth in the Czech Republic?
In the Czech Republic, truth is contested using various tactics, such as accusing political opponents of lying and manipulating reality. Challenging the truth, in the sense of fact-checking, can be good for democracy, but it must be done carefully and responsibly. In our research, we have understood truth-contesting primarily as criticism of elites and questioning the truthfulness of political opponents. In doing so, political actors seek to discredit their opponents and create alternative versions of reality that they consider and present as more 'truthful'. This allows them to relativize the truthfulness of their political opponents and other public actors.
On which issues is truthfulness most contested?
Often, these issues are related to political, economic or social events that have a strong resonance in public debate and that have the capacity to generate controversy. Examples include corruption, health policy or economic issues. Our research focused on issues such as migration, which polarizes society and, combined with the growing influence of social media, exacerbates public emotions such as fear, anger or even hatred.
The refugee crisis that began in 2015 has played a key role in politicizing and polarizing the public debate on migration in many European countries. In the Czech Republic, fears and concerns about the possible arrival of migrants from different cultural backgrounds have sparked heated debates. Such an environment created favorable conditions, especially for those politicians who wanted to discredit or blame their political opponents.
Could you explain what the term post-factual politics means?
In our research we started from the assumption that the conditions under which people interpret lies and falsehoods and judge truthfulness are changing. Political actors question the truthfulness of other public actors or political opponents, including the media. These verbal attacks, anti-elite accusations of lying, express the essence of post-factual politics and can become a tool to influence public perceptions of politicians' credibility. In an environment where facts become relative and depend more on opinion than fact, any statement about the world can seem potentially true.
What role do emotions play in post-factual politics?
In post-factual politics, truth and facts lose their traditional weight and politicians are more likely to appeal to emotions and construct alternative versions of reality. They are often emotional in their statements and seek to use emotion to strengthen their own claims and discredit political opponents. The emotional appeals that post-factual communication brings to politics accentuate the contradictions between different groups and thus promote the polarization of society.
Could you give a specific example of the use of emotions to influence public opinion?
Negative emotions such as anger, fear, contempt or anxiety can be used by politicians to intensify the divisions between the 'lying' elite and the 'honest' ordinary people. These emotionally charged statements help to generate negative public sentiment, which helps politicians to undermine the legitimacy of their opponents and increase their own credibility in the eyes of the electorate. Moreover, post-factual politics inherently questions scientific expertise and the existence of objective facts. Politicians can thus use emotional appeals to support their own claims and persuade the public to believe in their alternative expertise. In doing so, they can distract from evidence and logical reasoning. Moralizing, emotional and heated language serves as a tool for politicians to convince people of their own truth and allows them to use sentiment instead of rationality.
What causes people to succumb to these emotional appeals?
At the individual level, factors such as distrust of institutions and the media are at work. This affects how people perceive the veracity of information and how they interpret it when politicians, for example, challenge the veracity of a particular media outlet. It has been shown that attacks by politicians on the credibility and objectivity of news media reduce the credibility of the media in the eyes of the public.
However, there is no single cause. The development of digital media and social networks has enabled mass distribution of information, and politicians and ordinary people can share their opinions and news very easily. This has created an environment where there is competition for attention and where it can be difficult to separate truthful information from misinformation or critical debate from attacks on the veracity of people. So-called confirmation bias, the tendency for people to confirm their existing beliefs and ignore information that does not fit with them, can also play a role.
Under what circumstances do certain politicians succeed in undermining the credibility of their opponents?
For example, in times of economic, political or health crisis, we can expect that questioning the veracity of opponents in public debate will resonate. In our research, we hypothesized that the increased uncertainty of the situation, the unpredictability of crises, and the political pressure to address looming dangers open up opportunities for political actors to use the crisis to advance their own agendas. In such a situation, those involved create their own interpretation of the crisis, including its causes, consequences and attribution of political responsibility for its resolution. Attacks on truthfulness can thus serve to politically damage and undermine trust in responsible politicians, whether on the basis of actual facts and knowledge or more generally by calling their integrity into question.
Could you summarize the most important takeaways from your award-winning research?
We have shown that competition for truth and relativization of the truthfulness of public statements are important phenomena in the current political environment. We have developed a new theoretical framework and methodological tool for exploring the relativization of truth, truth-telling and knowledge in political communication, especially in the case of polarizing issues such as migration. We were also able to identify several key features of post-factual communication. The latter is characterized by specific content and stylistic elements, where politicians use a hostile and anti-elitist tone and accuse their opponents of spreading lies and false information. By understanding what circumstances make it easier or harder for politicians to disseminate post-factual messages, we can better understand the circumstances under which political actors tailor their messages to resonate with specific audiences and how they are able to exploit the moods and contradictions in society.
How can these insights be used in future research and practice?
It is important for future research in this area to explore how the spread of misinformation can be reduced and critical public thinking can be encouraged. Equally important is to understand how the media can help to provide balanced and credible coverage of political issues. For the current social situation, this means that we need to actively engage in the fight against misinformation and promote critical thinking as a key public skill. Our findings can also serve as a starting point for developing communication strategies to improve political communication and democratic dialogue.
