It is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the causes of epistemic vulnerability.
This is because in most research, proving causal relationships requires very specific data, which are often more difficult and more costly to obtain.
But there are a few suspects.
Countries where populists are strong are more vulnerable.
Both left and right-wing populists tend to
have a tumultuous relationship with the truth.
The populist appeal consists in making citizens feel heard and
valued. As a result, populists blur the line between what feels right
and what is true, and they tell voters that their gut is always correct.
On top of that, the populists’ constant denunciation of the elites, including
the media, leads many citizens to become receptive to conspiratorial ideas
and question what is true and what isn’t.
The study also suggests that partisan newspapers might be particularly harmful.
The idea that newspapers play a significant role in the crisis of information is a provocative finding. The dominant narrative is that newspapers are bastions of higher-quality news, especially compared to television or digital media. However, this notion, which draws on the newspaper industry’s legacy of unearthing important political scandals such as Watergate, is highly US-centric.
The reality is that the quality of journalism found in today’s newspapers is a lot more mixed outside of the US. For example, the British newspaper industry is much more partisan and far less authoritative, revolving around a large number of tabloids.
The more newspapers engage in partisan politics, the more vulnerable the country.
Countries with fewer and more divided parties are more vulnerable.
Having more political parties to choose from reduces the probability that citizens will find themselves in a partisan bubble. On the other hand, fewer parties means citizens are more likely to gravitate around people and news sources from whom they’ll only hear more of the same.
In addition, having less political parties to choose from simplifies ideological divides, especially if the two parties are divided in terms of what they stand for. This encourages citizens to think about politics in terms of simple in-group and out-group perceptions. In other words, in terms of “us vs. them."
When applied to information, that means citizens are more likely to question the legitimacy or the value of the news they encounter. Sometimes for good reasons, but sometimes for the wrong ones.
A popular and independent public broadcasting system makes societies more resilient.
Citizens tend to be better informed about political issues when they consume public media. This is because public broadcasters are more likely to provide news that cuts across different viewpoints, helping people understand various perspectives rather than just hearing one side of the story.
Furthermore, public media have a positive effect on the overall quality of news in the media landscape. This phenomenon, known as 'market conditioning,' means that the presence of public broadcasters encourages private news outlets to also raise their standards, leading to less misinformation being spread and more trust in the media.
Julien Labarre’s research suggests that countries where more people regularly use public media are less epistemically vulnerable. This may be due to several factors: public broadcasters are often less dependent on advertising revenue, they are subject to stricter regulations, and they prioritize public interest over profit.