Dr. Joseph P. Zompetti, a professor in the School of Communication at Illinois State University, teaches courses in political communication, social movements, and rhetoric. He is a recipient of three Fulbright grants to study in Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Kyrgyzstan. He has taught in nearly 30 countries and is internationally known for his research and teaching of argument, critical thinking, political communication, democracy promotion, disinformation, and political engagement.
Zompetti’s most recent book, Divisive Discourse: The Extreme Rhetoric of Contemporary American Politics, is in its second edition and focuses on reducing the polarization in political discourse. He shared his thoughts about digital literacy as it relates to politics and contemporary American life.
How important is digital literacy when it comes to political campaigns and elections and to democracy overall?
It is now absolutely vital. For societies all over the world, and this is certainly true in our American context, digital media has become a way of life that offers many benefits. Many people thought the internet and social media would revolutionize and help democratize the world. Theoretically, digital media should be the ultimate check against corruption, abuse of power, and anti-democratic forces. Unfortunately, as the outcomes of Arab Spring have taught us, and since then, the lessons we’ve learned from massive government surveillance on digital media, pervasive disinformation from all perspectives (government, corporations, elites, citizens, organizations, etc.), complex and savvy algorithms that block alternative views, and the side effects of digital use such as lower attention spans and shallower viewpoints, the use of digital media has “evolved” as anything but democratic. They have become the new weapon by entities of power and manipulation. If we have a chance at using them in positive ways and in a manner that can reduce our susceptibilities toward manipulation and propaganda, then it is imperative that we learn from each other and that educational institutions provide ways to enhance digital literacy.
What is the difference between misinformation and disinformation?
Most scholars agree that misinformation is inaccurate, damaging, or even absolutely false information that exists and is expressed in various ways, which can be done without the source knowing that the information is tarnished. Disinformation is when misinformation is spread intentionally—disinformation is when exaggerated, inaccurate, and false information is manipulated and disseminated for some type of an advantage, which could be for financial gain (e.g., when a company engages in fraud), cultural advantage (e.g., an ideological group manipulates facts to make their point of view more attractive than others), or political gain (e.g., when a candidate or party manipulates information so their positions are favorable when contrasted with their opposition who are often vilified and demonized).
“My belief is that we can fight wrong, harmful, or displeasing speech with our speech. Someone said a long time ago, ‘You fight bad speech with good speech,’ and that is my general sentiment as well.”
Dr. Joseph Zompetti
What is confirmation bias, and why is it important to seek out a variety of sources, including those you don’t agree with?
Most of us like to think that we are correct about what we believe. It feels good and reinforces our beliefs when others appear to agree with us. We can also seemingly generate stronger and more persuasive messages if we can make it appear that others agree with us. We often purposefully seek like-minded people or groups to support our position or to confirm our perspectives. This is an intentional process that limits, reduces, and in some cases, attempts to eliminate all conflicting notions. This is called confirmation bias, which can have disadvantageous consequences, with probably the two most prominent being that confirmation bias limits other viewpoints that might have some validity or even truth to them (meaning we could be wrong), or such a bias can limit other perspectives to such a degree that our perspectives become a sort of “blind faith.” In other words, confirmation bias impedes our ability to think critically, and if we are surrounded by only confirming information, then we are less able to defend our positions because we are no longer challenged. Our beliefs may become more rigid and dogmatic, while our actual ability to defend them and persuade others weakens.
What is the government’s role with regard to those who use social media platforms to spread disinformation?
The quick answer is that the government’s role should be very limited because private companies own social media platforms, and private companies can do whatever they want so long as it is legal. This is a tricky question because, in the American context, we all have First Amendment rights to express views and opinions, even when those opinions and views are incorrect, problematic, or dangerous. Of course, First Amendment protections are not absolute and have some limitations. In general, we live in a society that cherishes, honors, and protects each person and group’s rights to speech and expression. If we start impeding certain types of speech, it will guarantee that our types of speech will at some point become regulated or forbidden when our rivals are in positions of power. My belief is that we can fight wrong, harmful, or displeasing speech with our speech. Someone said a long time ago, “You fight bad speech with good speech,” and that is my general sentiment as well.
Lastly, does digital literacy have important implications beyond politics?
Absolutely. The fundamental process of digital literacy is essentially specific techniques of critical thinking. Learning a process like S.I.F.T. (stop, investigate the source, find better sources of information, trace information to its original sources) means learning a process of thinking. Almost all digital literacy techniques can be used in all aspects of life. Let me suggest that instead of learning a specific digital literacy technique, like S.I.F.T., we could teach students in K-12 how to engage in basic critical thinking skills—such as defining a problem, understanding the significance and causes of the problem, listing and understanding the pros and cons associated with the problem, and then evaluating the pros and cons of potential solutions. That is called the process of stasis, which is a list of simple questions we should ask whenever there is a decision of some gravity to be made or when evaluating something controversial. The stasis process dates back at least 2,000 years to a Sophist from ancient Greece. Argument and rhetoric scholars have taught this for generations. Those simple questions could be—and should be—applied to the information we receive in our digital world. Thus, the lifelong and always useful techniques of critical thinking skills have benefits beyond politics and digital media.
