The death of a four-year-old boy from complications of diphtheria has once again opened the floodgates for conspiracy theorists, who also express their distrust of doctors in their posts on social networks.
Ilze Kuzmina/Latvijas Avīze
Why is Latvia an easy ground for various conspiracy theories? Mārtiņš Pričins, a lecturer at the Department of Communication at the University of Latvia, and Artūrs Utināns, a psychotherapist and assistant professor at the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at Riga Stradiņš University, tell “Latvijas Avīze” that the main reasons are low levels of trust in state institutions, various experiences, insufficient education and a lack of critical thinking.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, you have linked the public’s lack of trust in state institutions to the spread of such theories. What, in your opinion, is the reason for this low level of trust in state institutions?
Mārtiņš Pričins: Trust in state institutions has consistently been low in Latvia. It has been so since the end of the last century. The public has little trust in both the government and the parliament, especially in political parties. However, trust in military and medical institutions has been quite high.
The spread of conspiracy theories is fuelled by both a lack of knowledge and by some major experiences that people have suffered.
In recent years, at least two major events have affected the public: first, Covid and then the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This creates additional stress, reduces the sense of security.
The question then becomes whether state communicators at all levels are capable of expressing themselves in a way that calms people and makes them feel secure, whether they are providing reliable information that can be trusted.
And, in your opinion, are they?
It varies. The President of Latvia, Edgars Rinkēvičs, is seen as a successful example of communication among many public groups. However, he uses elements of popular politics that are also classic in many other countries in Europe and the world. He speaks of politics and things outside politics in a way that people find clear. It must be said, however, that this is also risky: the President is risking to remain at this level of political communication.
Some, however, find his communication sometimes amusing and question whether it is always on subjects that should be at presidential level.
For example, the President has spoken about excessive salaries for the management of capital companies. That, I think, is right, because the public is concerned about this subject. However, he may not have spoken about issues that also deserve his attention, but by addressing them, the President would be risking his popularity.
So you could say.
The bad examples of communication that could have contributed to public distrust of state institutions have more to do with the Covid period. For example, at the end of 2020, many people had not decided and were unsure whether they would vaccinate against Covid when the vaccine became available. At that time, vaccines were being procured and there was a communication gap about the need for vaccination. But by the spring and summer of 2021, the number of people who had decided not to get vaccinated had already increased. I think this was because during that period, various groups and platforms emerged telling people that vaccines are harmful and that they should not get vaccinated.
Research shows that the conspiracy theories about the harmfulness of vaccines did not originate in Latvia: they were foreign materials that were translated and localised.
I think what contributed to their spread was that people had a lot of questions they expected answers to. The question is whether the answers provided by the state institutions were always reasoned and precisely targeted at a specific audience.
The main target audience for the vaccination campaign at that time were the elderly. What images were used in the advertisements? Did the people who were getting vaccinated in them really look like typical Latvian seniors? I doubt our seniors were able to associate themselves with these models.
Moreover regarding vaccination, the Ministry of Health and other campaigns offered emotional arguments. Instead of explaining the content of the vaccines, they urged people to get vaccinated so that they could go to the theatre, meet friends and so on. Of course, it is difficult to explain the content of vaccines in campaigns and direct communication was probably needed which would have required more funding. But if it is effective, it should have been done.
And there were also very objectionable messages. For example, “Download the app – Stop Covid”. As if downloading the app would make a difference! Or “I want summer”. As if it will not come even if one does not vaccinate.
During Covid, you were researching the spread of conspiracy theories in Facebook groups.
The Covid time is a good multi-level example that we can look at and draw some good conclusions from.
For example, the February/March 2021 Eurobarometer data shows that the Latvians were the most critical of the government’s handling of Covid.
For example, in Portugal, where restrictions were much more harsh, people were more positive about the government.
The government’s decisions and actions during Covid continue to have an impact on the public.
I am currently involved in a study led by Professors Jānis Ikstens and Visvaldis Valtenbergs, where we are looking specifically at the concept of trust, both by analysing the decisions and consequences of the Covid period, but also by looking at how this trust has been affected by recent events.
The spread of conspiracy theories is fuelled by a lack of knowledge, a lack of information.
A father whose son got diphtheria and died, when asked by an LTV journalist whether he would vaccinate his other children against infectious diseases, said that he was thinking about it and that it was important for him to know the content of the vaccines. That, then, is the role of communicators, to explain the contents in a simple and understandable way. Yes, it takes time, and most people want to get this information from their doctor. It may be that the doctor is already tired, but they should be aware that it is a very responsible moment to explain to the patient, in plain language, everything that is of interest to them.
If the state communicators or doctors do not do this, then there will be others who will speak to people in simple terms and tell them that everything is happening to make the rich richer, or that the vaccination is beneficial to some evil forces, or that some power is being exercised through it.
In any case, there are many simple explanations that seem to put everything in order. People have a certain desire and tendency to believe in something.
There was nothing in the postings of anti-vaccination activists on social networks that I found easy to understand or trustworthy. The information was contradictory and chaotic. For example, diphtheria vaccines were said to contain aluminium, but it was not explained how this was harmful; it was claimed that it contributed to both autism and cancer. I have also read that diphtheria is contracted by homeless people, which suggests that the author of this post is confusing the disease with tuberculosis. How are these messages more credible than those of the state?
If we look at each individual case, perhaps we really do not see any logic there. However, it so happens that these messages contain phrases that speak to us. Often the communicators seem trustworthy, and if so, you no longer look for logic in their posts. Conspiracy theorists often create video live streams, which is the most common way in which they reach their followers.
Another is that people tend to look for information that they already believe: they look for confirmation of their own beliefs.
Conspiracy theories are also widespread on social networks because, for example, Facebook’s algorithms particularly favour emotional messages.
You have said that those who do not trust state institutions do not trust other people as well. But why do they trust conspiracy theories? They are also spread by people!
Yes, but the conspiracy theorists often speak clearer language than those who reflect the messages of state institutions. However, there are several reasons for this, and each situation may be different. Belief in conspiracies is also fuelled by disappointment in state power or arrogance of power, and by the fact that the causal link expressed by conspiracy theories seems logical to them. For example, the Prime Minister’s remarks at the teachers’ protest can be seen as arrogance of power: you received a pay rise, why are you still coming? Frequent changes in decisions and corruption, as well as various political scandals, do not contribute to trust in government.
It is not only the government that is arrogant. Even ordinary social network users often laugh at and mock conspiracy theorists rather than engage in reasoned debate, which can only increase the tendency to believe in conspiracies.
Yes, there are also cases where someone asks a question and someone with more knowledge immediately criticises their lack of knowledge rather than explaining things.
I would say that the public as a whole should have a respectful attitude towards each other.
During Covid, the public media, especially television, also took a very strong stance, for example on vaccinations. On the one hand, one could say that this was a responsible thing to do. However, has this not contributed to a lack of trust in the media?
It is important that the public media represent all public groups. What was missing during Covid was information about the fact that there are people who think differently. Yes, this was not good for trust, because from the point of view of persuasive communication, two-way messages are actually more effective, where the communicator shows that there are other points of view.
If one-sided information is given, it no longer seems trustworthy to many people.
When I was lecturing on media literacy in Kurzeme, after a lecture on how news is made, a woman came up to me and said: “You told the official version very well. But how is it really?”
This disbelief is also fuelled by the fact that there have indeed been cases where the lies of officials have been exposed.
Of course, if we are lied to about the state recovering the money invested in Air Baltic, why should we believe that vaccines are safe?!
Trust-building is a long-term process. You can do a lot to increase it, but it only takes one case to undo years of work. To prevent the spread of misinformation and to encourage public dissemination, we should create transparent procedures and build a better country. The worse it is, the more anxiety there is, the more likely it is that someone will take advantage of the mood of these people and spread disinformation, either for commercial reasons or to gain power or attention for themselves.
Are there no conspiracy theories in prosperous countries?
There are, but they are less persistent.
One idea to encourage children to be vaccinated against infectious diseases is to prevent the unvaccinated from attending school or kindergarten. Would this be an effective decision?
Probably not. It will be explained as yet another offence by the system against those who think differently.
Believing themselves to be “one team”
What kind of people believe in conspiracy theories? Artūrs Utināns, a psychotherapist and assistant professor at the Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at Riga Stradiņš University, says: “It is not narrow, one kind of people.
According to research, almost half of the world’s population may believe in each conspiracy theory. 15-20 per cent can be quite fierce conspiracy theorists who believe in a lot of these theories.
For example, that both vaccines and that the 5G network are harmful.
Artūrs Utināns: Often, belief in conspiracy theories is combined with religious belief, especially sectarian religions. These are people with reduced critical thinking. The only thing that can promote critical thinking is education, so that people can distinguish which opinion is more factual. Unfortunately, critical thinking courses are only now starting to be introduced in universities and mentioned in schools. The problem is that in schools, we are often made to learn facts by heart without being told what they are for, without being allowed to see the connections.
There is a common element in conspiracy theories, whether they are about Covid-19 or vaccinations against other infectious diseases or 5G Internet or planes spreading poison: behind the government are very powerful forces that control all the governments of the world, such as the Committee of 300.
The idea is that we are being fooled so that these powerful forces can pursue one of their interests.
For example, so that the pharmaceutical industry can make big money (in fact, so-called alternative medicine makes the same money as so-called big pharma) or so that the population can be reduced because the super-aristocracy thinks that there are too many people. The global depopulation conspiracy theory is very popular. Moreover, the remaining people will be controlled, hence all the ideas about chipping, which could be administered by vaccines. It is not clear, however, why the chips should be administered with vaccines. In theory, a dentist could do it, they could be put in a drink or food.
Yes, sometimes these conspiracy theories are contradictory. For example, opponents of vaccination have argued both that the vaccine does not exist and that the vaccine was deliberately created and distributed in secret laboratories.
But this does not matter much, because the main idea is: “Everything the government tells us is a lie!” Therefore, any theory is more accurate than what the government tells us.
The government is at the top, so you may not believe it, while someone who is talking about conspiracy theories is right next door, your neighbour, your colleague, and therefore more trustworthy. The world is divided into good and evil, that is the mythological view of the world.
Scientists and doctors are put in the role of “evil” because, in the case of Covid, for example, the government said the same thing as the doctors and scientists. It turns out that they are all one team, including the World Health Organisation, the police, journalists…
If you ask whether government communication failures contribute to the spread of such theories, then you have to admit that, of course, mistakes happen. Everyone makes mistakes in communication. But the mistakes are unintentional, whereas the conspiracy theorists say that they are being lied to on purpose.
Everyone has not only communication but also thinking errors.
It is the latter that makes it possible to believe in conspiracy theories, because they make us see the world in black and white.
It is clear that most critics and doubters of government, if they were in government themselves, would make the same mistakes.
Another conspiracy theory is that all the vast money that is invested in space exploration is not actually spent on it, but stays in the pockets of the world’s most powerful. We are fooled into thinking that there is space. Indeed, in life, sometimes things are like that. For example, Russia is said to have spent a lot of money on the war machinery, but in the end it turned out not to really work, because it is likely that much of the money was simply stolen.
