Stop, think it through

Rapid scientific research leading to the rise of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines against the coronavirus accompanies a simultaneous spread of misinformation and disinformation. Just 12 influencers, termed the Disinformation Dozen, are responsible for up to 65% of anti-vaccine content. While evidence debunks claims that messenger RNA vaccines change DNA, cause autism, or render people infertile, false information continually fuels vaccine hesitancy and impedes progress toward herd immunity.

Misinformation is false information, spread regardless of intent. Disinformation is false information, spread with the intention to deceive. The impact of misinformation and disinformation extends far beyond the coronavirus. 

“I think misinformation and disinformation both have undermined America — not just America, the world, the world’s trust in institutions, in science, in democratic processes — because they’ve raised so much doubt in people’s minds,” Darren Linvill, associate professor at the Clemson University College of Behavioral, Social and Health Sciences, said in an interview. 

Why do people believe misinformation? 

Two concepts from psychology come into play, according to Deen Freelon, associate professor at the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. One is confirmation bias, believing ideas that fit with one’s preexisting beliefs, and the other is motivated reasoning, actively reasoning to fit new ideas into one’s preexisting beliefs. The combined effect of both concepts makes it difficult to discern facts from false statements aligning with preexisting beliefs. 

“The fundamental issue is that often, disinformation and misinformation is targeting groups of people that are already inclined to believe that information,” Dr. Linvill said. “Often that’s because it’s coming from sources that they trust, that are part of their social network, people that purport to have the same identity as they do, and oftentimes identity is more important than facts.”

At the same time, other researchers, including David Rand and Gordon Pennycook, suggest that mental laziness rather than motivated reasoning is the primary issue affecting judgement of accuracy. Their evidence indicates that people who spend more time reasoning about the accuracy of information are better able to discern fact from fiction. A nudge in a social media post questioning the truth in content may be sufficient to bring people to consider the accuracy of information. 

The issue of misinformation is often more than the difference between fact and fiction. Even with accurate supporting facts, a writer’s language may be laced with an agenda, according to history teacher Cindy Jurisson. For mainstream newspapers like The New York Times and Chicago Tribune, the interest of maintaining a business comes at odds with the publication’s function as a democratic watchdog. 

“It’s tone. It’s use of certain kinds of words that may have more of a pejorative cast. It’s adverbs or adjectives that appear to be sort of neutral but actually sort of fulfill a certain agenda,” Dr. Jurisson said. “There’s a lot of that to go around, and I wince when I see it even in publications I trust more because you don’t want that to leak too much into hard news.”

She said that part of her goal as a history teacher is to impart close reading skills to her students. Close reading entails maintaining a skepticism toward the content, questioning claims for evidence and even reading correction pages to observe how publications address inaccurate reporting. 

“Trust but verify — not cynical,” Dr. Jurisson said. “I don’t think we should be cynical, but reading with a healthy skepticism is really important when we’re consuming news about public events.”

Whether belief in misinformation stems from motivated reasoning or mental laziness, discerning true statements from false ones takes time and effort. Senior Kennedi Bickham said it is often not practical to double-check claims in assimilating the mass amount of information presented by outlets each day.

“I do not have the effort to actually seek out the information and check if it’s true. Just because, unlike those types of sites, you’re just scrolling for entertainment, so if you see something that’s fake, or you suspect of being fake, but it’s kind of funny, you’re just gonna keep laughing, keep rolling.”

Solutions to curb misinformation come from both the supply and demand side, according to Dr. Freelon. On one hand, platforms can regulate the content they present and take down misinformation accordingly. Youtube banned content spreading coronavirus misinformation on Sept. 29. On the other hand, users can learn media literacy or simply take more time and care to consider the accuracy of information they consume. 

“When you are reading media or consuming media, from any source to the political side of the spectrum that you’re on, that’s when you’re most vulnerable to falling for mis-or disinformation,” Dr. Freelon said, “so you have to be extra careful with that kind of content.”

Stopping the spread of misinformation likely requires both supply and demand side solutions.