FACEBOOK’S ‘WHITE GENOCIDE’ PROBLEM: A SOCIOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION OF PROBLEMATIC INFORMATION, SHAREABILITY, AND SOCIAL CORRECTION IN A SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT by Jessica Ann Barraclough BRRJES005 A dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Arts in Media Studies Faculty of the Humanities University of Cape Town 2020 Date of submission: 26/10/2020 Supervisor: Prof. Herman Wasserman, Centre for Film & Media Studies, UCT University of Cape Town COMPULSORY DECLARATION This work has not been previously submitted in whole, or in part, for the award of any degree. It is my own work. Each significant contribution to, and quotation in, this dissertation from the work, or works, of other people has been attributed, and has been cited and referenced. Signature: Date: 19 April 2021 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Herman Wasserman, for his guidance, encouragement, and unwavering patience in the face of my broken deadline promises and pandemic-induced panic attacks. I would also like to thank my little family: Dr. David (Dad) Barraclough, for having supported my academic pursuits for as long as I can remember; not-so-little-sister Caity for endless laughter; and mom, whose strength in life I draw inspiration from every day. We miss you. Special thanks go out to my boyfriend, Tom Southey, who has been patient long enough to feature in my thesis acknowledgements a second time, and who has always encouraged my wildly varying endeavours. I would also like to thank my beautiful friends, who bring a tear to my eye when I think about how lucky I am to have found them. (Vicky, I could never have finished this degree without our shared thesis pains and your advice). And finally, I would like to thank Finn for his furry distractions in dark times. Black Cat would be proud. ABSTRACT A relatively small, but highly visible group of South Africans believe that farm attacks/murders (and other crimes against whites) constitute a targeted ‘white genocide’. Their beliefs have found support and corroboration in various online spaces, but especially within ‘alternative news’ Facebook pages. This case study is used as an opportunity to apply a sociotechnical model of media effects to a very real disinformation problem that continues to inflame race relations in South Africa. Three pivotal questions are addressed, relating to (1) how Facebook users on farm attack/murder-focused pages engage with problematic information (fake news) and why; (2) the qualitative and affordance/format-related themes of posts with the highest share counts on these pages; and (3) the common themes of discourse used in defensive responses to social corrections of false information. Findings suggest that South Africa’s ‘white genocide’ problem is more deep-set than other more ephemeral ‘fake news’ stories, especially due to stark racial and political dichotomies, reflected by the post comment sections herein. Group identities and cognitive biases work to sustain the disproportional media ‘spectacle’ of gratuitous farm attacks/murders against white South Africans, and leverage Facebook’s platform affordances to do so. TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Definitions of ‘fake news’ ...................................................................................................................... 5 2.2. Propaganda discourse in ‘fake news’ .................................................................................................... 7 2.3. The contemporary news landscape and its role in the ‘fake news’ era ................................................ 8 2.4. ‘Active audience’ media effects theory and the pitfalls of early ‘fake news’ research ....................... 11 2.5. Sharing on social media: The participation paradigm, the spreadable spectacle, and social proximity 12 2.6. Filter bubbles and echo chambers ...................................................................................................... 14 2.7. Social and group identity theory, cognitive biases, and the news ...................................................... 15 2.8. ‘Social correction’ of fake news .......................................................................................................... 18 2.9. Marwick’s sociotechnical model of media effects .............................................................................. 20 2.9.1. Actors: Reactive white identities in South Africa and how they make meaning from media .... 20 2.9.1.1. Reactionary Afrikaner whiteness: history and collective identity ..................................... 23 2.9.2. Messages: Problematic information, information modes, and white South African discourse themes 24 2.9.2.1. Modes and mediums of ‘white genocide’ content: ‘Facts’, statistics, ‘documentaries’ and image macros .......................................................................................................................................... 25 2.9.2.2. White reactionary discourse themes and patterns ........................................................... 26 2.9.3. Affordances: ‘Fake news’, Facebook, and the digital divide ...................................................... 30 2.9.3.1. The rise of white-fear, ‘alternative news’ Facebook pages in SA ...................................... 33 2.10. Chapter conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 34 Chapter 3: Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 36 3.1. Qualitative survey ............................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.1. Population .................................................................................................................................. 37 3.1.2. Sampling Frame .......................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.3. Sample ........................................................................................................................................ 38 3.1.4. Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 39 3.1.4.1. Survey Design .................................................................................................................... 40 3.1.4.2. Pilot studies ....................................................................................................................... 41 3.1.4.3. User-friendly design ........................................................................................................... 41 3.1.5. Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 42 3.1.5.1. Dependability and Conformability ..................................................................................... 43 3.2. Qualitative Content Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis.............................................................. 44 3.2.1. Population .................................................................................................................................. 45 3.2.1.1. Qualitative Content Analysis.............................................................................................. 45 3.2.1.2. Critical Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................. 45 3.2.2. Samples and Sampling Frames ................................................................................................... 45 3.2.2.1. Qualitative Content Analysis.............................................................................................. 46 3.2.2.2. Critical Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................. 46 3.2.3. Data Collection ........................................................................................................................... 47 3.2.3.1. Qualitative Content Analysis.............................................................................................. 47 3.2.3.2. Critical Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................. 47 3.2.4. Data Analysis .............................................................................................................................