The National Security Agency campus in Fort Meade, Maryland. (AP Photo / Patrick Semansky)
Shortly after the 2016 presidential election, two notable phrases began circulating widely in American political discourse, providing politicians with an effective shield against oversight and accountability: the “deep state” and “fake news.” Once rare in the American lexicon, these terms have since become mainstays in political rhetoric, central to a strategy of discrediting the very institutions responsible for holding power to account. Understanding the origins and mechanics of these two terms is key to unraveling their profound impact.
The “deep state” has its origins in the Turkish phrase derin devlet, which refers to a kind of shadow government acting independently of elected officials.[1] In the context of U.S. political rhetoric, the term has been co-opted to describe a conspiracy of unelected bureaucrats and officials working against the interests of the people—or more specifically, against certain political leaders. This reimagining of the term gained traction after the 2016 election and by 2017, nearly half of Americans believed the deep state existed and considered it a major problem for the country.[2]
Similarly, the term “fake news” has a long history, but it underwent a significant transformation during this period. Once used to describe misinformation or propaganda, the term was weaponized to discredit legitimate journalism.[3] By labeling unfavorable reporting as “fake news,” those under scrutiny were able to create a feedback loop that encouraged audiences to dismiss critical coverage outright, viewing it as biased or fabricated. By 2018, “fake news” had become synonymous with the dismissal of mainstream journalism, regardless of its factual accuracy.[4]
While the “deep state" and "fake news” narratives seem to cover different ground, they both operate as sophisticated forms of poisoning the well
- discrediting your opponent to an audience in advance to encourage dismissing any future claims or accusations they may make in the future.
. This rhetorical strategy primes the audience to distrust sources of criticism before any accusations or evidence are even presented. When government oversight bodies are cast as part of a covert “deep state,” their findings are easily dismissed as politically motivated, regardless of the evidence. Similarly, when the press is broadly painted as “fake news,” it diminishes the public’s ability to discern fact from fiction, creating an environment where truth becomes a matter of opinion rather than objective reality. The end result is a chilling erosion of trust in institutions tasked with upholding accountability.
Poisoning the well narratives are particularly effective when they are plausible within their context. Both the “deep state” and “fake news” narratives draw strength from the sprawling, complex nature of these institutions. Government bureaucracy is vast, confusing, and often intimidating. Likewise, most news organizations are owned by a handful of large, multi-national corporations and can seem equally all-powerful and intimidating.[5] Appealing to these anxieties is a reliable way to stoke conspiratorial narratives, while those who challenge them risk being dismissed as naïve or complicit.
This isn’t helped by an American public whose trust in the government and the media is at an all-time low.[6] This underlying distrust makes Americans uniquely predisposed to embracing a “deep state” conspiracy or writing off major news organizations as “fake news.” In this context, it becomes all-the-more plausible to believe that these immense and splintered ecosystems could somehow be coordinating behind the scenes and working in unison towards a single hidden agenda.
Ultimately, these calculated narratives do more than shield individual politicians—they weaken the very foundations of democratic oversight. By eroding trust in the institutions designed to ensure transparency and accountability, the “deep state” and “fake news” narratives contribute to a dangerous cycle of disinformation and disengagement. By effectively poisoning the well, the two narratives isolate audiences from objective voices and prime them for even bigger lies in the future—a future free from oversight and accountability.
