IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v14y2024i4p43-d1362701.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Disinformation and Fact-Checking in the Face of Natural Disasters: A Case Study on Turkey–Syria Earthquakes

Author

Listed:
  • Sandra Méndez-Muros

    (Department of Journalism II, University of Seville, Avda. Américo Vespucio, s/n. 41092 Seville, Spain)

  • Marián Alonso-González

    (Department of Journalism II, University of Seville, Avda. Américo Vespucio, s/n. 41092 Seville, Spain)

  • Concha Pérez-Curiel

    (Department of Journalism II, University of Seville, Avda. Américo Vespucio, s/n. 41092 Seville, Spain)

Abstract

Natural disasters linked to contexts of unpredictability and surprise generate a climate of uncertainty in the population, resulting in an exponential increase in disinformation. These are crisis situations that cause the management of public and governmental institutions to be questioned, diminish citizens’ trust in the media, and reinforce anonymity in social networks. New digital algorithms create a scenario plagued by fake news and levels of viralization of rumors never before contemplated. Our objective is to analyze the verification capacity of fact-checking agencies at X at times of information disorder, such as the Turkey–Syria earthquakes in 2023. We apply a mixed methodology of comparative content analysis to government, news agency, and IFCN accounts, generating a general sample (n = 46,747) that is then subjected to thematic categorization to create a specific sample (n = 564). The results indicate a low commitment to fact-checking on the part of official bodies and news agencies, as opposed to fact-checking agencies’ accurate handling of the facts. The lack of debate and engagement generated by digital audiences in the face of the discursive intentionality of disinformation is significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Sandra Méndez-Muros & Marián Alonso-González & Concha Pérez-Curiel, 2024. "Disinformation and Fact-Checking in the Face of Natural Disasters: A Case Study on Turkey–Syria Earthquakes," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-29, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:43-:d:1362701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/14/4/43/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/14/4/43/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard G. Peters & Vincent T. Covello & David B. McCallum, 1997. "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), pages 43-54, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. O O Ibitayo & K D Pijawka, 1999. "Reversing NIMBY: An Assessment of State Strategies for Siting Hazardous-Waste Facilities," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 17(4), pages 379-389, August.
    2. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    3. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    4. Therese A Joiner & Lynne Leveson & Kim Langfield-Smith, 2002. "Technical Language, Advice Understandability, and Perceptions of Expertise and Trustworthiness: The Case of the Financial Planner," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 27(1), pages 25-43, June.
    5. Wang, Fan & Gu, Jibao & Wu, Jianlin, 2020. "Perspective taking, energy policy involvement, and public acceptance of nuclear energy: Evidence from China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    6. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    7. Cope, S. & Frewer, L.J. & Houghton, J. & Rowe, G. & Fischer, A.R.H. & de Jonge, J., 2010. "Consumer perceptions of best practice in food risk communication and management: Implications for risk analysis policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 349-357, August.
    8. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    9. Dutt, Dwarkeshwar, 2020. "Understanding the barriers to the diffusion of rooftop solar: A case study of Delhi (India)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    10. Gordon, Joel A. & Balta-Ozkan, Nazmiye & Nabavi, Seyed Ali, 2023. "Price promises, trust deficits and energy justice: Public perceptions of hydrogen homes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    11. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    12. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2002. "The Perceived Risk of Terrorism," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2002:11, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 16 Jan 2004.
    14. Mathew P. White & Branden B. Johnson, 2010. "The Intuitive Detection Theorist (IDT) Model of Trust in Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(8), pages 1196-1209, August.
    15. Taneja, Shilpa & Ali, Liaqat, 2021. "Determinants of customers’ intentions towards environmentally sustainable banking: Testing the structural model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    16. Jan M. Gutteling & MargÔt Kuttschreuter, 2002. "The role of expertise in risk communication: laypeople's and expert's perception of the millennium bug risk in The Netherlands," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 35-47, January.
    17. Kânoğlu-Özkan, Dilge Güldehen & Soytaş, Uğur, 2022. "The social acceptance of shale gas development: Evidence from Turkey," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 239(PC).
    18. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2003. "Risk communication between experts and the public: perceptions and intentions," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2003:13, Stockholm School of Economics.
    19. Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2006. "Psychological Determinants of Reactions to Food Risk Messages," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 1045-1057, August.
    20. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner, 2014. "Pain of Sustainability: Limiting the Number of Times Homeowners Can Receive Disaster Relief," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(7), pages 1-17, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:14:y:2024:i:4:p:43-:d:1362701. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.