​​Rebooting the disinformation machine for Trump 2.0

By Jeffrey Layne Blevins >>

It looks like America is going back after all. Since the Democratic convention in August, Vice President Kamala Harris often declared, “we are not going back,” as a reference to the many ills of Donald Trump’s first term in office, which saw a woefully mismanaged response to a global pandemic, the Big Lie about election fraud, a failed insurrection, two impeachments, as well as numerous other controversies.

So, what exactly are we going back to? On the campaign trail, the republican candidate threatened mass deportations of so-called illegal immigrants and political opponents.  Trump’s behavior was often crass and unbecoming of any elected official, let alone a U.S. president, like when he simulated fellating a microphone at a rally in the final stretch of his campaign.

However, Trump’s more recent inflammatory rhetoric, threats, and vulgar conduct are less worrisome than what his second administration will mean for our news and information environment.  We are going back to an ethos of fake news and media distrust that will be worse during Trump’s first term in office. And if you don’t think it will be that bad again, you can hold Elon Musk’s beer.

Trump rode into office in 2016 on a wave of fake news on social media generated by Russia’s Internet Research Agency. At the same time, Trump was calling legacy news media outlets “fake news” and the “enemy of the people” for any reporting that reflected his administration in a negative light.

Since Musk, a Trump acolyte who campaigned with him during the final weeks leading up to the election, has taken over Twitter and transformed into X, we should expect to see more content in our X feeds that unfairly disparages democrats and Trump’s political rivals on social media. During the stretch run of the campaign this year, outrageous claims emerged on social media platforms that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were stealing and eating people’s pet dogs and cats. There were also patently false allegations that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the Biden administration was seizing property from victims of hurricane Helene.

Of course, we should also not forget widespread claims of voter fraud, echoing Trump’s preemptive assertions that illegal immigrants were somehow being shipped into the U.S. by Biden (and then Harris) to vote for democrats. The irony should not be lost on us that Trump’s centerpiece grievance suddenly vanished on election day when it began to look like he could win on votes alone. For Trump and his MAGA culture, voter fraud only happens if you lose.

What is different from fake news during the 2016 election campaign is that these kinds of disinformation campaigns are home grown and further reinforce potent cultural narratives. What journalists, especially political reporters, need to prepare for over the next four years is how to report on such culturally charged allegations. It is a common journalistic norm to focus reporting on the victims and the least powerful, rather than the perpetrators and the powerful. We do this for good reason. Legal immigrants to the U.S. suffered threats and disparagement because of online disinformation. Hurricane victims may not have sought relief from FEMA over baseless fears that the agency would seize their property. Certainly, these stories deserved to be told.  

But fellow journalists should also take note that it matters least to MAGAs if disinformation is racially charged, misogynistic, or falsely attacks government agencies. If news media center their reporting on those elements, all that Trump supporters will hear is that you are calling them racist or bigoted for believing such claims. For that matter, journalists might also consider the targets of disinformation campaigns, mainly the political right, as victims to a lesser degree. Their consumption of this content has cultivated a distrust in fundamental democratic institutions and processes.  

Instead of emphasizing the nature of the lies, it would behoove journalists to focus on the liars. Who is making this false claim and how would they benefit from its spread? Other than the Big Lie about a rigged election in 2020, Trump is usually not the originator of false claims even when they benefit him politically.

What makes disinformation spread on social media so politically powerful is the commercial nature of algorithms that are programmed to keep users engaged by putting content in front of them that they respond to by minutes watched, likes, shares, and comments. And what keeps the political right engaged – cultural content that plays on the worst of their fears and emotions.

And think again about who would benefit from the production, dissemination, and belief of such inflammatory content, whether it attacks immigrants or undermines federal agencies, or trust in the institution of journalism. What might be Musk’s deeper motivation for acquiring Twitter and actively campaigning for Trump?

Jeffrey Layne Blevins is a professor in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Cincinnati. As an independent journalist and opinion writer, he recently wrote a series of commentary on the U.S. presidential election for the Times of India. Dr. Blevins is also co-author of two books, Social Media and Digital Politics: Networked Reason in an Age of Digital Emotion (Routledge, 2024), and Social Media, Social Justice, and the Political Economy of Online Networks (University of Cincinnati Press, 2022). 

• ​​Rebooting the disinformation machine for Trump 2.0
• Opinion: Election night in a Gen Z newsroom is a reminder of what is at stake
• News Analysis: The threat Trump poses to the press
• As online activism grows, young adults struggle to evaluate flood of information
• ‘The anti-war vote:’ Some Gen Z voters disillusioned by Democratic Party amid Israel’s attacks on Gaza