{
  "id": 15795836,
  "title": "Distrust in the media and courts can cause democratic backsliding, study suggests",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/20/distrust-in-the-media-and-courts-can-cause-democratic-backsliding",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-10-20T20:20:24.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Phys.org",
    "slug": "phys-org",
    "url": "https://phys.org/news/2026-10-distrust-media-courts-democratic-backsliding.html"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Democratic backsliding, characterized by gradual erosion of democratic norms and institutions, can be challenging to detect. Citizens typically rely on researchers, reporters, and other third-party oversight bodies to identify and raise awareness about actions that subvert democracy. However, when these oversight bodies are disputed or distrusted by the public, individuals may question the validity of the criticisms, potentially allowing democratic backsliding to occur unchallenged.\n\nTo investigate this phenomenon, political scientists Robert Gulotty and Zhaotian Luo from the University of Chicago developed a game theory model involving three key players: citizens, incumbents, and oversight bodies. In this model, citizens have the power to remove backsliding incumbents, serving as a deterrent against actions that subvert democracy.\n\nThe researchers introduced the concept of uncertainty surrounding what constitutes backsliding. Backsliding can manifest in two main ways: stealthily, where power grabs and corruption go unnoticed until they are too late, as seen in the Watergate scandal involving President Richard Nixon; or through an excuse, where citizens must be alerted to suspicious behavior and also believe that accusations are accurate. This becomes particularly difficult when institutional degradation is hard to evaluate and when individuals distrust the oversight group issuing the criticism.\n\nThe study reveals that when an oversight body is contested by incumbents, voters use this criticism to determine whether the oversight body is genuinely malicious. This creates a strategic dilemma for accountability groups like the media and courts in deciding whether and when to alert citizens about specific behaviors. The credibility of these groups becomes crucial, as politicians' claims of \"fake news\" can lead people to doubt the validity of criticism, undermining deterrence efforts.\n\nThe researchers distinguish between effective and ineffective oversight based on their impact on incumbent behavior, voter learning, and the types of backsliding that occur. Effective oversight ensures criticism leads to removal of the incumbent, deterring actions that could be mistaken for subversion. In contrast, ineffective oversight often results in ignored criticisms, undisciplined incumbents, and actions that can be misconstrued as subversion.\n\nThe dual pressures on oversight bodies—ensuring accountability while maintaining credibility—create a challenging environment. When oversight is effective, citizens are more likely to trust criticisms, and dissuasion of subversive actions is more likely. However, when oversight is ineffective, warnings are often disregarded, allowing the incumbent to continue undisciplined actions that may be interpreted as subversive. This creates a feedback loop where cautious criticism from responsible oversight bodies is perceived as a \"fake news\" effect, further eroding trust and inhibiting democratic accountability.",
  "summary": "Democratic backsliding can be tricky to spot.",
  "key_points": [
    "Citizens rely on third-party oversight to detect democratic backsliding.",
    "Distrust in oversight bodies can lead to democratic backsliding.",
    "Uncertainty about backsliding makes it hard to evaluate institutional degradation."
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}