When it comes to their particular narratives, what you tend to find is that they are directed at generating a perception of threat and a perception of competition. So they will portray certain groups, migrants, minorities, feminists, LGBT community, intellectuals, the middle class even as a threat to security because they're responsible for terrorism or crime. They present them as a threat to economic stability by blaming them for economic recession or growing inequality. They portray them as a threat to culture because people come in with so-called different cultural values. And they also use narratives which are based around competition. So this idea that people are coming to take your jobs, to take your resources, to use up your public services so that you can't. So what populist narratives do is that they trigger a sense of competition and fear among the population that these changes are going to destroy the social order. Popular stereotypes are at an inherent advantage in our society today because of the way that the media works. So if you think about it, you've got public media and you've got private media. A public media in theory should be independent. Public broadcasters should be there to educate and inform the public and help them participate in sensible, balanced, democratic debate. But what tends to happen a lot nowadays is that public broadcasters are under the control of or influence of governments. And where you have authoritarian governments, so for example in Hungary or in Poland, they can use public media as a mouthpiece. So they have this medium at their disposal to transmit their narratives directly into people's homes. And you have a similar problem with private media. So about 10, 15 years ago, as you had the rise of the internet, people stopped buying newspapers. So the media outlets started to lose revenue because you're not buying papers and the advertising revenue that newspapers survived on was lost because those advertisers shifted their money over to the internet. So they started advertising on Google, they started advertising on Facebook. People started getting their news free on the internet. What happens then? A lot of media outlets collapse so they get sold off cheap and they get bought up by oligarchs. And then if you're in countries where oligarchs are close to populist authoritarian governments, you have there another vehicle that you can use to transmit your message. But the deeper problem is that even if you have well-intentioned media, they have to make money to survive. And in order to sell newspapers, they have to report fear-based, sensationalist, controversial headlines and stories. And these are inherently the messages passed on and used by populist authoritarian. So what happens is that these guys get given a lot of free air time because the stuff that they say sells newspapers. So if you look at the US, for example, Trump is constantly attacking the New York Times and the Washington Post. It doesn't like these guys. And yet often their headlines are merely repeating the messages that Trump says. So instead of criticizing them, instead of challenging Trump, they carry the messages for him. Traditional journalism, there are standards you're supposed to check your stories. You're supposed to do what you can to make sure it's accurate. Whereas with social media, it's much more easy to spread misinformation. And unfortunately because of Google and Facebook are profit-driven. So the way that their algorithms work to spread news is if people are clicking on this thing, then that means that more people are seeing it. It's more advertising revenue and it spreads. So the algorithms are designed in such ways to maximize profits. They're not designed in a way as to best facilitate democratic debate.