The expression ‘Fake News’ inside Internet memes engenders significant online virulence, possibly heralding an iconoclastic emergence of weaponized propaganda for assaulting agencies reared on public trust. Internet memes are multimodal artifacts featuring ideological singularities designed for ‘flash’ consumption, often composed by numerous voices echoing popular, online culture. This study proposes that ‘Fake News’ Internet memes are weaponized iconoclastic multimodal propaganda (WIMP) discourse and attempts to delineate them as such by asking: What power relations and ideologies do Internet memes featuring the expression ‘fake news’ harbor? How might those manifestations qualify as WIMP discourse? A multimodal critical discourse analysis of a small pool of ‘fake news’ Internet memes drawn from four popular social media websites revealed what agencies were often targeted and from what political canons they likely emerged. Findings indicate that many Internet memes featuring ‘fake news’ are specifically directed, revealing an underlying hazard that WIMP discourse could diminish democratic processes while influencing online trajectories of public discourse.
AndersonE (2008) Inclusive masculinity in a fraternal setting. Men and Masculinities105(5): 604–620.
2.
BatemanJ (2014) Text and Image: A Critical Introduction to the Visual/Verbal Divide. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.
3.
BawarshiASReiffMJ (2010) Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Washington, DC: Parlor Press.
4.
BergerPLuckmannT (1966) The Social Construction of Knowledge: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Doubleday.
5.
BernaysEL (1927) The Verdict of Public Opinion on Propaganda. New York: Universal Trade Press Syndicate.
6.
BernaysEL (1942) The marketing of national policies: A study of war propaganda. The Journal of Marketing63(3): 236–244.
7.
BörzseiLK (2013) Makes a meme instead: A concise history of internet memes. New Media Studies Magazine7(7): 152–189.
8.
BouvierG (2015) What is a discourse approach to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media: Connecting with other academic fields?Journal of Multicultural Discourses10(2): 149–162.
9.
ChandlerR (2013) Meme world syndrome: A critical discourse analysis of the first world problems and third world success internet memes. Master’s Thesis, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL.
10.
ChomskyN (2002) Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda (Vol. 7). Seven Stories Press.
ChiltonPSchäffnerC (2011) Discourse and politics. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 303–330.
13.
CookG (1992) The Discourse of Advertising. London: Routledge.
14.
DavisonP (2012) The language of internet memes. In: MandibergM (ed.) The Social Media Reader. New York; London: New York University Press, pp. 120–134.
15.
De FinaA (2011) Discourse and identity. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction263: 282.
16.
DawkinsR (1976) The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford university press.
17.
ElsnerJ (2012) Iconoclasm as discourse: From antiquity to Byzantium. The Art Bulletin943(3): 368–394.
18.
FaircloughMMulderrigJWodak (2011) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 357–378.
19.
FaircloughN (2013) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London; New York: Routledge.
20.
FinneganCAKangJ (2004) ‘Sighting’ the public: Iconoclasm and public sphere theory. Quarterly Journal of Speech90(4): 377–402.
21.
GalNShifmanLKampfZ (2016) ‘It gets better’: Internet memes and the construction of collective identity. New Media & Society18(8): 1698–1714.
22.
GirouxHA (2017) The Public in Peril: Trump and the Menace of American Authoritarianism. New York: Routledge.
HuckinT (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: MillerT (ed.) Functional Approaches to Written Text: Classroom Applications. Washington, DC: United States Information Agency, pp. 78–92.
JewittCBezemerJO’HalloranK (2016) Introducing Multimodality. London; New York: Routledge.
27.
JiwaniYRichardsonJE (2011) Discourse, ethnicity and racism. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 241–262.
28.
KnobelMLankshearC (2007) Online memes, affinities, and cultural production. In: KnobelMLankshearC (eds) A New Literacies Sampler. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 199–227.
29.
KohringMMatthesJ (2007) Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research34(2): 231–252.
30.
KressG (2010) Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London; New York: Routledge; Amazon Kindle Edition.
31.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2002) Colour as a semiotic mode: Notes for a grammar of colour. Visual Communication1(3): 343–368.
32.
KressGVan LeeuwenT (2006) Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London: Routledge.
33.
KumarSHamiltonWLLeskovecJet al. (2018) Community interaction and conflict on the web. In: Proceedings of the 2018 world wide web conference, Lyon, 23–27 April, pp. 933–943. Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
34.
LawsonS (2012) Putting the ‘war’ in cyberwar: Metaphor, analogy, and cybersecurity discourse in the United States. First Monday17(7): 49–73.
35.
MachinD (2004) Building the world’s visual language: The increasing global importance of image banks in corporate media. Visual Communication3(3): 316–336.
36.
MachinDMayrA (2012) How to Do Critical Discourse Analysis A Multimodal Introduction. London; Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
MautnerG (2005) Time to get wired: Using web-based corpora in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society16(6): 809–828.
38.
MihailidisPViottyS (2017) Spreadable spectacle in digital culture: Civic expression, fake news, and the role of media literacies in ‘post-fact’ society. American Behavioral Scientist61(4): 441–454.
39.
MilnerRM (2013) Pop polyvocality: Internet memes, public participation, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. International Journal of Communication7: 2357–2390.
40.
NorrisS (2004) Multimodal discourse analysis: A conceptual framework. In: LeVinePScollonR (eds) Discourse and Technology: Multimodal Discourse Analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 101–115.
41.
RainieHAndersonJQAlbrightJ (2017) The Future of Free Speech, Trolls, Anonymity and Fake News Online. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
42.
RossST (2002) Understanding propaganda: The epistemic merit model and its application to art. Journal of Aesthetic Education36(1): 16–30.
43.
ShifmanL (2012) An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society14(2): 187–203.
44.
ShifmanL (2013) Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication18(3): 362–377.
45.
ScorceseM (Director) and WinklerI (Producer) (1990) GoodFellas (Motion picture). Burbank, CA: Warner Bros.
46.
Van DijkTA (ed.) (2011) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
47.
Van LeeuwenT (1993) Genre and field in critical discourse analysis: A synopsis. Discourse & Society4(2): 193–223.
48.
WigginsBEBowersGB (2015) Memes as genre: A structurational analysis of the memescape. New Media & Society17(11): 1886–1906.
YoonI (2016) Why is it not just a joke? Analysis of Internet memes associated with racism and hidden ideology of colorblindness. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education33: 92–123.
