Cover not available
Part of
Manufacturing Dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis
Edited by Cornelia Ilie
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 339] 2024
► pp. 157–183

Chapter 5
The legitimation of conspiracy theories through manipulation

The case of climate lockdowns

| University of Turin

This chapter explores the manipulation of discourse on Twitter at the basis of the climate lockdown conspiracy theory. By analysing a dataset of tweets supporting the existence of climate lockdowns, the chapter looks at how the categories traditionally employed to define manipulation in language are applied when manipulation takes place in digital discourse. The new media is characterised by the expansion and re-elaboration of the classic dynamics of textual production and interpretation, and this is particularly evident when digital and semiotic affordances are used to manipulate discourse. The analysis of the climate change conspiracy theory proves that the architecture and affordances of social media allow, or even encourage, or at least quietly endorse, the legitimation of discourse through manipulation, especially news discourse.

Keywords: climate lockdown, conspiracy theories, Covid-19, legitimation, manipulation, social media, Twitter
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The “Climate lockdown” conspiracy theory
  • 3.Manipulation in (and of) online discourse
  • 4.Theoretical framework and methodology
  • 5.Data
  • 6.Analysis
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 17 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.339.05dem
References
Bastos, Marco T., and Dan Mercea
2019 The Brexit Botnet and User-generated Hyperpartisan News.” Social Science Computer Review 37 (1): 38–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika, and Helen Caple
2012 News Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Benkler, Yochai
2006 The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Benkler, Yochai, Robert Faris, and Hal Roberts
2018 Network Propaganda: Manipulation, disinformation, and radicalization in American politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Susan Conrad
2009 Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Danah, Scott Golder, and Gilad Lotan
2010 “Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter.” In 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10. DOI logo
Bruns, Axel
2008 Blogs, Wikipedia, Second Life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary, and Kira Hall
2003 “Language and Identity.” In A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, edited by Alessandro Duranti, 369–394. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul
2004 Analysing Political Discourse. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinelli, Matteo, Gabriele Etta, Michele Avalle, Alessandro Quattrociocchi, Niccolò Di Marco, Carlo Valensise, Alessandro Galeazzi, and Walter Quattrociocchi
2022 “Conspiracy theories and social media platforms.” Current Opinion in Psychology 47 (101407). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demata, Massimiliano, Virginia Zorzi, and Angela Zottola
2022 “Conspiracy theory discourses. Critical inquiries into the language of anti-science, post-trutherism, mis/disinformation and alternative media.” In Conspiracy Theory Discourses, edited by Massimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi, and Angela Zottola, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deschrijver, Cedric
2024 “News media’s epistemological framings of the Covid-19 ‘lab leak’ hypothesis: A contrastive metapragmatic analysis of ‘conspiracy theory’.” In Manufacturing Dissent: Manipulation and counter-manipulation in times of crisis, edited by Cornelia Ilie. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Karen M., Joseph E. Uscinski, Robbie M. Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka, Turkay Nefes, Chee Siang Ang, and Farzin Deravi
2019 “Understanding Conspiracy Theories.” Advances in Political Psychology 40 (1): 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1992 “Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis.” Linguistics and Education 4/3–4: 269–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Discourse and Social Change. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
2001 Language and Power. Second edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gardner, David
2022 Covid-19. The Conspiracy Theories. London: John Blake Publishing.Google Scholar
Garimella, Venkata Rama Kiran, and Ingmar Weber
2017 “A Long-Term Analysis of Polarization on Twitter.” In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 11: 528–531. DOI logo
Gold, Nicolas
2020 “Using twitter data in research: Guidance for researchers and ethics reviewers.” University College London. [URL]
Guardian
2020 “The Guardian view on the climate and coronavirus: global warnings.” The Guardian, 12 April 2020, [URL]
Hart, Christopher
2010 Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Highfield, Tim
2016 Social Media and Everyday Politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Jaworska, Sylvia, and Tigran Sogomonian
2020 “After we #VoteLeave we can #TakeControl: political bonding and imagined collectives on Twitter before the Brexit vote.” In Reference and Identity in Public Discourses, edited by Ursula Lutzky, and Minna Nevala, 181–202. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kauk, Julian, Helene Kreysa, and Stefan R. Schweinberger
2021 “Understanding and countering the spread of conspiracy theories in social networks: Evidence from epidemiological models of Twitter data.” PLOS ONE, August 12, 2021. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
KhosraviNik, Majid
2017 “Right Wing Populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo Chambers.” Insight Turkey 19 (3):53–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 “Social Media Techno-Discursive Design, Affective Communication and Contemporary Politics.” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11: 427–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgariff Adam, Pavel Rychlý, Pavel Smrz, and David Tugwell
2004, The Sketch Engine. In “Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress.” Lorient, France: 105–116.Google Scholar
Kleinke, Sonja, and Birte Bös
2018 “Indeterminate us and them: The Complexities of Referentiality, Identity and Group Construction in a Public Online Discussion.” In The Discursive Construction of Identities On- and Offline: Personal – group – collective, edited by Birte Bös, Sonja Kleinke, Sandra Mollin, and Nuria Hernández, 153–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krzyżanowski, Michał
2016 “Recontextualisation of Neoliberalism and the Increasingly Conceptual Nature of Discourse: Challenges for Critical Discourse Studies.” Discourse & Society 27 (3): 308–321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maharasingam-Shah, Eisha, and Pierre Vaux
2021 “ ‘Climate Lockdown’ and the Culture Wars: How Covid-19 Sparked a New Narrative Against Climate Action.” Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), 18 October 2021. [URL]
Mazzucato, Mariana
2020a “Avoiding a Climate Lockdown.” Project Syndicate, 22 September 2020. [URL]
2020b “Opinion: We Need to Act Boldly Now if we are to Avoid Economy-wide Lockdowns to Halt Climate Change.” Marketwatch, 23 September 2020. [URL]
Menz, Florian
1989 “Manipulation Strategies in Newspapers: A Program for Critical Linguistics.” In Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse, edited by Ruth Wodak, 227–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oxford City Council
2022 “Joint statement from Oxfordshire County Council and Oxford City Council on Oxford’s traffic filters.” December 7, 2022. [URL]
Puschmann, Cornelius
2015 “The Form and Function of Quoting in Digital Media.” Discourse, Context & Media 7: 28–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
2001 Discourse and Discrimination. Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak
2009 “The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA).” In Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis (2nd revised edition), edited by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Reyes, Antonio
2011 “Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions.” Discourse & Society 22 (6): 781–807. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanovich, Sergey, Denis Stukal, and Joshua A. Tucker
2018 “Turning the Virtual Tables: Government Strategies for Addressing Online Opposition with an Application to Russia.” Comparative Politics 50 (3): 435–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Unger, Johann Wolfgang, Ruth Wodak and Majid KhosraviNik
2016 “Critical Discourse Studies and Social Media Data.” In Qualitative Research (4th edition), edited by David Silverman, 277–293. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Uscinski, Joseph E.
2020 Conspiracy Theories. A Primer. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
1993 “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
1997 “What is Political Discourse Analysis?” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 11 (1): 11–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998 Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A.
2006 “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse and Society 17 (3): 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo
2007 “Legitimation in Discourse and Communication.” Discourse & Communication 1 (1): 91–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Discourse and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin
2019 Emotions, Media and Politics. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Williams, Jeremy
2022 “The Toxic Myth of the Climate Lockdown.” The Earthbound Report, December 20, 2022. [URL]
Zappavigna, Michele
2018 Searchable Talk. Hashtags and Social Media Metadiscourse. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
2022 “Social Media Quotation Practices and Ambient Affiliation: Weaponising Ironic Quotation for Humorous Ridicule in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 191: 98–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar