From Critical Thinking to Media Literacy

From Critical Thinking to Media Literacy 

Pascaline Gaborit and Joen Martinsen

Critical thinking plays a crucial role in countering “fake news” and disinformation, especially when other institutions fail to address these issues. Trust in the media is important and is built on the expectation of reliable and trustworthy information. However, trust can be dysfunctional in building resilience against disinformation. While citizens often expect journalists to tackle disinformation, we cannot solely rely on the media to act as watchdogs against these threats. In the post-truth era, blind trust is inappropriate, and a degree of skepticism is necessary. Although trust in the media is valuable, blind faith can decrease resilience to misinformation. Lower media legitimacy and trust are associated with greater resistance to misinformation. Citizens who approach the media with pragmatic skepticism are more resilient to misinformation. To prevent outright distrust of traditional media, the media should be more transparent about their sources, potential biases, and methods. This transparency would allow citizens to critically assess the information provided, fostering a pragmatic skepticism. By increasing transparency, the media can encourage critical thinking while maintaining fundamental trust in legacy media.

Critical thinking involves self-regulation, monitoring and controlling our emotional biases. This ability helps individuals enhance their cognitive skills and reduce emotional biases. Recent research has found that anger and anxiety are emotions that could lower our belief accuracy, give more partisan tendencies, which makes individuals more vulnerable to believing in disinformation. Self-regulation could particularly in politically divisive topics reduce our vulnerability to misinformation.

In today’s social media environment, polarization fosters the creation of “filter bubbles.” Personalized content reinforces users’ existing beliefs and worldviews, reducing their openness to alternative perspectives or counterarguments. This dynamic also influences voting behavior. An increasing number of young people rely exclusively on social media for news, making them particularly susceptible to the effects of these “filter bubbles.

Moreover, artificial intelligence is also affected, since algorithmic biases may restrict critical analysis and reinforce users’ pre-existing biases. Both these issues underscore the importance of self-regulating our emotions as a part of our critical thinking skills and minimize the power of anger and fear when consuming news online. Future research on critical thinking should place greater emphasis on the role of self-regulation and the ability to assess information independently of one’s emotions, an aspect that grows increasingly important with the rising use of social media and its potential influence on electoral behavior.

Securing Europe: Responding to Hybrid Threats Amid a Defense Resurgence

By Joen Martinsen and Pascaline Gaborit

Europe’s security landscape has undergone profound changes in the early months of 2025. Provocative remarks from the new U.S. administration—such as Trump’s assertion that Ukraine should never have started the war—and high-profile events like President Zelensky’s visit to the Oval Office and JD Vance’s stirring speech at the Munich Conference have intensified these shifts. At the same time, U.S. officials have amplified Russian disinformation and repeatedly threatened to withdraw critical military and nuclear resources from Europe. Rather than simply expressing indifference to European concerns, the current U.S. leadership appears intent on reshaping the continent—sowing internal divisions, influencing elections, and igniting culture wars—in pursuit of individual bilateral deals rather than a united European alliance. This approach, eerily reminiscent of Russian tactics, is sending shock waves through the post–World War II European security order and has sparked calls for a new era of European defense.

With the U.S. President repeatedly questioning America’s commitment to NATO’s security guarantees, European leaders are now forced to ask: Can Europe continue to rely on American protection in an era of shifting alliances? The challenge is not limited to traditional military threats; modern warfare presents a complex array of dangers—from cyberattacks and the sabotage of critical infrastructures like internet submarine cables to the disruption of navigation and communication systems such as GPS. Public support for increased military spending and deeper European defense cooperation is high today, but as the sense of immediate crisis fades, so too might that support.

Therefore, European leaders must act decisively—not only by bolstering military capacity but by integrating systems, strategies, and policies to address the multifaceted threats they face. Hybrid threats, which blur the lines between military and non-military aggression, pose an escalating risk. Europe must develop coordinated, proactive responses that cover everything from safeguarding its digital and energy infrastructures to countering disinformation campaigns. Despite the continent’s robust interconnectivity, the absence of a unified strategy to protect these assets leaves Europe vulnerable. The time has come for a comprehensive European approach to defense—one that ensures rapid, coordinated action against the emerging grey zone threats of the 21st century.

The USAID Shutdown: Impacts and Questions

By Joen Martinsen and Pascaline Gaborit

In a sweeping effort to slash the U.S. budget deficit, the Trump administration, along with the unofficial Department of Government Expenditure (DOGE) led by Elon Musk, has moved to dismantle USAID—placing nearly all employees on leave and freezing foreign aid programs. In an unprecedented act of executive overreach, security personnel blocked agency staff from accessing their offices, plunging billions in foreign aid into uncertainty and bringing critical humanitarian efforts to an abrupt halt.

A federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order, ruling that the dissolution of USAID contradicts the Constitution and falls within the Congress' authority. However, the dismantling remains in effect pending a final court decision. Having already relied on disinformation to justify the move, the administration’s actions pose a pressing question: what are the limits of Disinformation-Driven Governance?