The Consequences of Evidence- Versus Non-Evidence-Based Understandings of the “Truth”: How Russian Speakers in Germany Negotiate Trust in Their Transnational News Environments

Abstract

Extant research on migrants’ media use and trust has delivered mixed evidence on whether, and in which ways, migrants stay loyal to their homeland news media and/or develop trust in host-society media, particularly when the narratives of the two types of media clash. To advance this strand of research, this study scrutinizes how an audience group with migration background, who lived the first part of their lives under authoritarian rule but then relocated to a democracy, negotiates trust in their multilingual, transnational news environments. Specifically, we conducted semi-structured interviews with forty-two Russian-speaking first-generation migrants living in Germany in 2021. As we find, distinct understandings of the concept of “truth” played a pivotal role in how our participants negotiated trust in their transnational news environments. We distinguish broadly two understandings of “truth”: (1) “truth” as a category grounded in factual evidence and (2) “truth” as a non-evidence based category grounded in values, emotions, or identities. Illustrative for the second understanding, some participants felt a strong moral obligation to believe Kremlin-sponsored media as they perceived these organizations as representing their homeland, independently of whether their news coverage was factually accurate or not. The two understandings of “truth” also affected how and where participants sought for what they considered the “truth.” In the “Discussion” section, we argue that particularly the non-evidence-based truth-understandings formulated by our participants, and the ensuing truth-seeking strategies are conducive to the reach and persuasive impact of Kremlin-sponsored content among Russian speakers living abroad.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 9 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.