?
Фейк во спасение? Представления россиян о (не)приемлемости ложной информации
The term "fake news" has entered not only academic discourse but also everyday language. Researchers highlight a wide range of negative consequences associated with disinformation. However, it remains unknown whether the public problematizes this situation and whether news audiences are willing to justify fake news in certain contexts. This study's empirical base comprises 119 semi-structured interviews conducted between March and May 2024, focusing on perceptions of fake news. While the interviews reveal a generally negative attitude towards the dissemination of fake news, respondents noted its relative acceptability under specific circumstances. These include situations where the misinformation is perceived as having no negative consequences for individuals or society (e.g., humor and satire), avoids adverse reactions to current events (e.g., panic), or yields positive outcomes (e.g., raising public awareness of significant issues, prompting constructive or socially desirable actions, serving as a tool of state policy, a "training ground" for critical thinking, or a means of combating false beliefs). However, such fake news must meet certain criteria: minimal factual distortion, extraordinary circumstances and infrequent dissemination, temporary nature with subsequent corrective information provided, and compliance with existing legislation. Reasoning regarding the (un)acceptability of fake news can be framed within ethical or pragmatic logics. In the former, respondents emphasize the impossibility of justifying disinformation through potential positive effects. In the latter, attempts are made to calculate the potential positive and negative consequences of fake news, with a willingness to endorse unethical measures linked to the perceived shortcomings of others—individuals susceptible to cognitive biases, false beliefs, and excessive emotionality.