Despite a revival of interest in the work of Gabriel Tarde, he remains an underappreciated, patchily translated, and often misrepresented thinker. When he is invoked, it is typically as the "forefather" of actor-network theory, as claimed by Bruno Latour; as the advocate of the power of conversation in media influence, as promoted by Elihu Katz; or as a useful, but inaccurate, citation for comparing rational publics with irrational crowds. This study aims to correct certain misconceptions and broaden knowledge of Tarde's work as a media and communications scholar by focusing on two texts, "The Public and the Crowd" (where anglophone readers have typically relied on incomplete translations) and Les Transformations du Pouvoir (which remains untranslated). Tarde teaches us that the media was always social and that the line between physical crowds and mediated audiences was always blurry.
Social media groups opposing net-zero policies have drawn attention for coordinating disruptive protests and employing post-truth tactics, yet the motivations behind this opposition, and the role misinformation plays in it, remain largely unexamined. To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study of UK Facebook groups opposing low-emissions transport schemes. We show that the backlash is rooted in substantive policy concerns and political disaffection, which organized denial campaigns exploit through misinformation. Misinformation did not autonomously drive the backlash, but, we argue, hardened existing views, diverted attention from productive critique, and helped escalate disagreement into existential conflict, making consensus more difficult. These findings can help counter misinformation and address the underlying conditions that make it appealing.
This study conducts a qualitative, exploratory investigation of climate obstruction in Brazil. Based on a literature review and an exploratory analysis of gray literature, the study maps the key players, narratives, tactics, and institutional linkages that shape climate obstruction in Brazil. By examining how obstruction spreads across political, economic, and media spheres, the study identifies patterns that mirror and diverge from those in the Global North, particularly the United States, where obstruction has longer-established roots. The analysis also discusses the recent evolution of the phenomenon into new forms of climate obstruction. Findings show that Brazilian obstruction operates as an orchestrated ecosystem primarily sponsored by agribusiness, with practical consequences for public policy. This ecosystem gained greater prominence and institutional legitimacy during the Bolsonaro administration (2019-2022), establishing obstruction as a political force rather than a discursive norm.
In the Special Section "Climate Change Disinformation," we examine climate-related disinformation at a transition point: It is increasingly less about denying climate science than it is about arguing against climate policy. Across six studies, the collection finds that denial of the science persists among those whose public case centers on cost and fairness. It also finds that disinformation succeeds where an audience is already disposed to accept it. In this introduction,2 we argue that this ongoing shift is outpacing the instruments built to address it, since arguments about policy are difficult to disprove and they largely remain beyond the reach of fact-checking or news literacy. The contributions offer researchers, practitioners, and policy makers a basis for responses that engage the politics of climate action rather than only factual claims of disinformation.
Applying Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) methods to the online output of climate change contesters, this article examines how their discursive strategies are accommodated within counter-disinformation frameworks. Critiquing the reductive epistemology shaping such frameworks, it challenges the notion that, by endorsing "depoliticized understandings" based on unassailable scientific authority, they build democratic consensus from a factually validated decarbonization imperative. It argues that unless facts generated within the scientific paradigm are incorporated into an agonistic process within which their articulation with truth remains contingent, they cannot effectively combat climate contestation.
