Addressing Science-Related Misinformation and Disinformation

Understand why false information is tough to combat.

• Simply stating facts isn’t enough to change people’s minds if they believe a piece of misinformation or disinformation.
• Psychological drivers such as confirmation bias, familiarity bias, and motivated reasoning may make false information hard to dislodge. Disinformation is particularly difficult to challenge when it’s backed by large, well-funded efforts.
• Attempting to correct misinformation tends to be an uphill battle, so if a false claim isn’t widespread, simply ignoring it may be a better approach. (There’s also some evidence that debunking may backfire and reinforce falsehoods in some circumstances, though that is the subject of ongoing debate.)
• No single debunking strategy will work for everyone, and even the more effective approaches have small impacts. But those small impacts accumulate, so they are still worth the effort.
• Some people are fully invested in false information, and no strategy to correct their understanding will have an impact. But most people aren’t convinced one way or the other—these are the audience members to focus on.

Avoid contributing to misinformation and disinformation in the first place.

• Reporting on science-related claims without properly evaluating them may inadvertently perpetuate false information. Instead, examine the evidence supporting or disproving a claim, consider whether it’s worth mentioning at all, and provide necessary context if you do.
• If you can’t tell whether the evidence behind a claim is solid, ask an expert to help you figure out whether you should cover a claim as legitimate.

It’s easier to stop misinformation or disinformation before it starts than once it’s circulating.

“Prebunking” or “inoculation” strategies can help audiences recognize and refute misinformation on their own.

• Set the stage by forewarning your audience about bad-faith efforts to manipulate them.
• Highlight telltale patterns and language that tend to be used in false claims.
• Focus on common tactics, such as emotional manipulation, misattribution, misleading or selective framing, and false balance; or on topics ripe for misconceptions, such as vaccines or electric vehicles.
  • For tactic-based prebunking, you can use a claim as a news peg to explain a strategy used to spread false information, why it works, and what might motivate those originating or sharing the information.
  • For topic-based prebunking, research the range of possible falsehoods that might spread about those issues, and choose one to use as an example. As you write stories addressing that claim, start by saying what’s true, then warn your audience that what’s coming next is false before stating the false claim. Explain why that information is false or how we know, and then follow it up with another true claim.
• Make it easy for your prebunking to be shared.
• The effects of prebunking fade over time, so you may need a series of prebunking stories that act as informational booster shots.

For claims that are already circulating, consider these debunking strategies:

• Avoid the simple myth vs. fact structure, which some studies suggest isn’t effective.
• Don’t devote equal space to “both sides” of an issue just for the sake of “balance.” Instead, take a weight-of-experts approach, focusing your coverage on evidence-based information and sources that align with the consensus on a topic.
• Consider how visuals can reinforce your message. For example, pair a firmly accepted health claim with an image of a group of doctors as opposed to an image of a single doctor.
• Expand your sourcing. In weighing information, audiences pay more attention to sources’ trustworthiness than to their expertise. Debunking messages that cite not just scientific experts but also trusted community voices, such as clergy and nurses, can be powerful.
• As you debunk (or prebunk) claims, being transparent with your audience about what you do and don’t know builds trust.
• Tailor your approach to what people in your audience care most about. In combating vaccine misinformation, for example, different audiences might respond to different strategies:
  • In community-oriented populations, focusing on the collective benefits of vaccination may be more effective than focusing on the risks of contracting a disease.
  • On the other hand, focusing on the risks of illness may be more effective in populations that value bodily purity and sanctity, like some religious denominations or those who adhere to wellness culture.
  • In some marginalized communities, belief in misinformation about vaccines can stem from historical medical mistreatment, so addressing false claims may require a focus on building trust in the medical system.
• Don’t overwhelm your audience with a deluge of debunking. Focus on just a few points of evidence, flawed logic, or strategies being used to perpetuate the false information instead of a comprehensive takedown.