Deepfakes in Democracy: When Seeing Isn’t Believing


 “Seeing is believing” may not always hold true anymore. With artificial intelligence (AI), even audio or video can be generated. Deepfakes - media generated by AI which can make it seem that someone said or did something they didn’t do or say - are now one of democracy’s greatest threats.

A 2024 McAfee survey indicated that 63% of respondents had seen a political deepfake in the past 60 days, and almost half (48%) said it affected how they viewed the candidates (Fox Business, 2024). Researchers at Northwestern University created a database that tracked 100+ confirmed political deepfakes beginning in 2017 (CASMI, 2024). Scholars warn of a “liar’s dividend”, where actual scandals are dismissed as fake, fake scandals are believed to be true.

Public concern is high as O consented to 90% of respondents worry about deepfakes and voice cloning (Pindrop, 2024). Regulation, however, lags behind and citizens and platforms are left with the challenge of developing mechanisms to manage their usage.


References

Comments

  1. Chanelle MuriukiOctober 1, 2025 at 9:11 AM

    Hi Mariam! You raise important points about the dangers of deepfakes in democracy. The statistics you cited illustrate a significant public concern, highlighting that misinformation can easily sway perceptions of candidates. The concept of a “liar’s dividend” is particularly alarming, as it undermines trust in legitimate news. As AI technology advances, it’s crucial for both platforms and regulators to act swiftly to implement safeguards and enhance media literacy among citizens to combat this threat effectively.

    ReplyDelete
  2. -Jeremiah Rushin-December 1, 2025 at 10:18 AM

    I think realistically political deepfakes are a little early to be actually not noticable and the fact that Fox news is reporting on this before the epstein files comes out seems to be a connection everyone is missing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Kiyah WilsonDecember 2, 2025 at 9:15 PM

    Hey Mariam.
    Deepfakes have been a recurring thing considering how well AI is developing. I can understand how almost half of viewers perspectives on the candidate have changed due to them. "Lair's dividend" is a huge factor in this especially with the political drama that we are currently seeing.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fox vs. CNN: The Same Story, Two Realities

Image
 If you tuned into the Fox News and CNN coverage of the same political debate, you would think that you were in two completely different worlds. One of the networks frames the candidate as consistent and assertive, while the other frames them as being clumsy and ineffective. This is the power of framing, which effects how a story is told that can affect public perception. Consider the 2024 presidential primary debates. Fox emphasized highlights where the conservative candidates staunchly critiqued “mainstream media bias.” CNN concentrated on contrasting candidate policy stances, coupled with fact-checking candidate claims. But they both covered the same event, and the viewers left with completely different takeaways. This sort of split coverage contributes to polarization. Those viewers, only consuming content from one of the two networks, may never see the whole picture, and therefore confirmation bias padding is only reinforced. And of course, when coverage is so vastly different...
Read more

The TikTok Election: When Algorithms Choose What We See

Image
 Rather than transmitting information based on journalism's established norms of objectivity, fairness and factuality, TikTok's algorithm transmits information which gets instant engagement via likes, shares, rewatches, comments and emotional reactions; thus, as an outlet for political messaging, the platform optimizes its transmission of content for "virality" (for how quickly and widely it can be transmitted) rather than for accuracy. During both the 2022 election cycle and the 2024 election cycle, news cycles on the platforms often started with the emergence of a video on TikTok before many traditional journalists had even responded. Thus, a single 30 second video from a political creator/influencer/meme page could misrepresent a policy or take a politician's words completely out of context and, by the time journalists fact checked the video, the video would have been viewed by millions of people on their phones, tablets or computers. A media effects analysis o...
Read more