Abstract Against the backdrop of rising populist movements and autocratic regimes worldwide, policy makers, publics, and academics are increasingly concerned about the negative impacts of mis- and disinformation on democracy. While there is debate about the actual share of fabricated content in online communication environments, such forms of information manipulation appear in many shapes and with varying degrees of deviation from facts. What unifies them is their use of narratives to distort public debate, sow division, and seed doubt in institutions. However, with increasing scholarly attention, the literature on information manipulation is becoming increasingly fragmented, calling for stronger integration. Particularly, different strands of research use either framing or narrative perspectives in their analyses. After reviewing essential forms of information manipulation and systematizing them on different levels of analysis, the paper addresses this fragmentation by proposing and testing a multilevel framework that integrates both framing and narrative perspectives on information manipulation. The framework was tested in an exploratory case study in the context of the 2024 European Parliament elections. Based on the results, the benefits and limitations of the framework are discussed. The overall aim of this paper is to add to the systematic use of terminology in the analysis of information manipulation phenomena.
Timo Lenk (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: