When to engage: the media & misinformation

Are the media an ally in the fight against misinformation or part of the problem?

My advice would be: it depends, which is why you need to "pick your battles" and consider when (and when not) to intervene carefully.

Some challenges, such as how to talk about false claims without spreading them, are common to both media work and direct interventions.

But, as I detail below, there are a number of others challenges relating to how the news media operates that should give communications professionals and experts pause before parachuting into a misinformation maelstrom.

Whose news do you trust?

Recently, I trawled a year's worth of news headlines about misinformation to put together my review of 2024. What did I learn? Look at the outlet first.

News searches are now poisoned with articles featuring misinformation ABOUT misinformation news (including AI, clickbait, Substack newsletters, and republished old content).

I found many outlets happy to publish false claims, especially those made by influential individuals, without sufficient challenge/interrogating the facts and only including token quotes giving "the other side".

So I refined my search to find reporting on each misinformation issue from outlets where I knew, regardless of their politics, stories would at least be fact-checked and cite credible sources.

The most trustworthy were mostly mainstream "old school" news media, major newswires, public service outlets and newspapers, along with a few specialist websites covering technology, health, and environmental issues.

There's a media relations rule that says always check the 'media narrative' (previous coverage) before engaging on any kind of controversial issue. I think this holds true for misinformation too. Ask yourself: how has this outlet handled previous misinformation stories?

Are the facts behind false claims interrogated sufficiently? Do they include credible sources and counter-arguments?

If the answer to both of the above is 'yes' that's reassuring, but if it's 'no' I'd think very carefully about the reputational risks (to institutions and individuals) of working with an outlet without strong enough editorial policies in place to contain and challenge misinformation effectively.

Know your correspondents

Just as media outlets vary in their approach to misinformation so do journalists.

There is a select band, fact-checkers and misinformation correspondents, who are experts at unpacking and debunking false claims. I've been heartened by the amount of high-quality journalism they are producing and see them as natural allies in the fight against fake news.

But they are only a small part of the news ecosystem. While popular with sceptics, their articles are unlikely to reach the neutrals ("don't knows") and misinformation-sharing believers (see Decoding the spectrum), who are key target audiences in counter-misinformation work.

Specialist health, science, and environment correspondents, used to sifting through the evidence on an issue and canvasing the views of experts (for example via the UK's Science Media Centre), can also help to challenge false claims.

There are potential pitfalls in working with even these specialists, most of whom are committed to accurate and balanced reporting. They can still be lured by the narrative of the 'maverick' scientist going against the scientific consensus. There's also a risk that they're so keen to demolish fake news they push experts to give more certainty than the evidence allows.

Trickier still is that, with topics such as health, science, and the environment increasingly politicised, and many misinformers either linked to political movements or political figures themselves, misinformation stories are often covered by political/general correspondents.

These correspondents are likely to have far less understanding of the scientific process or knowledge about evidence on a topic than their specialist counterparts. They may not trust experts much in areas such as pandemics, migration, and net zero where the political battle lines have already been drawn (often with scant regard for the facts).

To them a misinformation issue becomes just another political row with interventions by experts or institutions often interpreted as a political act.

Should you step into the political arena to fight misinformation?

I'd suggest only doing this if everyone involved understands the risks and agrees the rewards, in terms of the audience reached and what your intervention is trying to achieve, are worth it. Entering the bruising slugging match of political media opens up organisations to allegations of political bias and individuals to personal attacks. So I'd argue it's essential senior leaders buy into this strategy and will support if there is a significant backlash.

Conspiracies mean clicks

Unfortunately, the lesson from crisis comms is that conspiracy and cover-up always make the most attractive media stories.

Readers/viewers are drawn to the simple, eye-catching claims misinformers are expert at fabricating. Compounding this, journalistic culture (particularly in the US) thrives on investigation and the search for the new(s).

So the story that the real truth is being deliberately concealed is a seductive one to journalists looking to attract an audience, and much more interesting than the idea the facts were there all along in published studies and data.

The messy and complex reality of evidence on a topic (including what we don't know) can make it hard to give a simple explanation disproving a false claim. Misinformers also have so many other false explanations they can switch to if one is shot down (what you could call the "something must be wrong" problem) with experts left repeating the truth like a broken record.

Challenges like these could argue against engaging with the media about misinformation. But with the rise of the 'celebrity' misinformer the days of hoping fake news fizzles out on its own are gone. Now if an influential person says it, it's news, or if lots of people are talking about it, it's news.

And if you don't fight misinformation in the media, who will?

Do your homework

I've talked a lot about the problems but not possible solutions.

I think some can be found in the general principles I outlined in 7 positive steps, to tailor your media message to your target audience, to focus on issues not personalities, engage with empathy, and highlight consensus.

The old maxim "choose your battles" is also important here, deciding when to engage and who with having considered the different levels of risk represented by different outlets and types of correspondent, and mindful that some outlets are happy to entertain false claims if it fits their agenda and even "friendly" journalists may get it wrong sometimes when handling misinformation stories.

I'd suggest the sort of cautious media approach used in crisis comms is helpful, focusing on responding to demonstrably damaging false information you have expertise to correct, not just critical comments or annoying 'bad takes'.

Before engaging, research previous things key misinformers have said on a topic, analyse their likely attack lines and work with experts to come up with powerful, accessible facts, stats, and messages that rebut these.

As with crisis comms, TV and radio interviews present the biggest risk, always check if it will be a one-on-one interview or if your expert might be put up against a misinformer (I'd advise declining if the latter). Help your spokesperson by preparing bridging phrases that cut to the heart of the real issue such as "the real problem is X" "the key take away from this for everyone should be Y" and, if possible, rehearse the interview in advance.

These are just a few thoughts on how to engage with the media about misinformation. I'll be returning to this important topic again soon.