Mr. Kumkar, the term “alternative facts” has become a familiar expression in recent years. How did this idea come about?

This phrase was first coined in the wake of Donald Trump’s inauguration ceremony in January 2017. Photos at the time showed that significantly fewer people were present at this celebration than at Barack Obama’s celebration four years earlier. Still, White House press secretary Sean Spicer claimed there had never been more people at a presidential inauguration. When Kellyanne Conway, an adviser to the president, was subsequently asked about this problematic statement in a television interview, she said Spicer was not lying, just stating alternative facts. The term was the subject of discussion worldwide and in almost every national newspaper during the weeks following her interview.

Was this what motivated your research on the topic?

I followed the discussion, of course, but my research on the topic began during the coronavirus pandemic, when the media repeatedly raised concerns about misinformation on social media. In a research project funded by the Otto Brenner Foundation, I examined statements made on Facebook about the pandemic with Hannah Trautmann. We wanted to know what communicative functions misinformation fulfilled here – and why it was increasingly shared.

What did you discover?

We found that the prevailing theories at the time could not fully explain the phenomenon. Many researchers from media studies and psychology began with the implicit assumption that there are essentially two reasons why people spread false information. One is that there are those who deliberately lie, for example to manipulate others. The other is that there are those who believe these lies, because they are naive or do not fully understand current events. However, we found that many people could not be grouped into either of the two categories.

If the motivation is neither naive beliefs nor lies, what is it?

Many who consume and spread misinformation on a given topic do not seem to be particularly interested in the truthfulness of the claims being made. They are well aware of which facts are verifiable, demonstrating this by often referring to these facts. For them, it is less about establishing alternative ways of thinking. Rather, they want to express doubts about generally known theories.

To what aim?

Using alternative facts is an evasive communication maneuver. Admitting the confirmed facts has certain political and social consequences. Consider, for example, climate change: The greater the likelihood that temperatures and sea levels will rise, the higher the urgency becomes for taking the necessary actions to limit and adapt to this change. Politicians are under pressure to make decisions that would fundamentally interfere with the economic system. In response to this pressure, associations such as the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) have been established. This is an organization that denies human-made climate change and I examined their reports for my book.

What kind of argumentation do climate deniers use?

More than anything, their arguments contradict each other. Their reports will say, for example, that there is absolutely no reliable measurement of global warming. At the same time, the NIPCC also argues that global warming is actually caused by solar winds. Of course, both statements cannot be true. But my theory is that making a conclusive argument was never their goal anyway. First and foremost, the NIPCC wants to sow doubts about the certain knowledge that climate change is human-made and poses a danger to people and the environment. By doing so, they temporarily reduce the pressure on politics to take action.

How do alternative facts spread?

A common theory is that there are more or less closed filter bubbles in which people with similar views construct their own versions of reality. This certainly plays a role when you look at the political divisions in the USA, for example. But I think that another phenomenon plays a bigger role in the spread of alternative facts: the constant availability of information.

Shouldn’t the availability of information result in quickly exposing misinformation?

This is certainly true to a degree, and it is important that misinformation is corrected. However, the constant availability also makes it harder to ignore information. No one has to buy a newspaper today to be up to date politically and socially. Everyone can inform themselves, and everyone knows that others are also able to inform themselves. So it is no longer viable to avoid unpleasant information by claiming to not know anything about it. The only option to circumnavigate this is to question certain facts.

So is the spreading of alternative facts in the modern world inevitable? Or can we do something to limit the reach of misinformation?

Many media outlets respond to misinformation with formats such as fact checks. It is certainly correct and appropriate to not leave false statements unchallenged. But it is also important to remember that corrections only help up to a certain point. Because at least as important as the information itself is the context in which this is viewed. Few people vote for the AfD because the party denies human-made climate change. The political program in which this denial is integrated plays a larger role, including its promise for stability and the preservation of prosperity. Whether this promise is realistic and what exactly this means can then be the focus of debate. In many cases, focusing on these issues seems to me to be a more productive approach than merely countering the false claims.