In this current atmosphere of heightened political polarization, fellow researchers in the U.S. have decided to largely avoid using the term “disinformation.” They contend that it’s become highly politicized and presents a significant opportunity for abuse. The label has been turned into a fighting word, used as a cudgel by both environmental extremists and industry alarmists to crush opposition and choke off fair discussion. This linguistic shift reflects a larger concern about the integrity of information. It raises troubling questions about the consequences of calling favored narratives false.
This reversal occurs after top officials in the Trump administration likened disinformation research to censorship, muddying the narrative even more. The resulting weaponization and politicization of terms such as “fake news,” “misinformation” and “disinformation” started well before the dawn of the internet. Today, everyone seems to be gaming these terms to advance their narrow agenda. Consequently, researchers are looking for other options that provide transparency without necessarily opening themselves up to a storm of partisan rage.
The Impact of Political Polarization
The use of the term “disinformation” has come under fire and rightfully so due to its negative implications in a highly charged, partisan atmosphere. In a recent report, researchers such as Sadeghi and Brooking complain that disinformation labeling is subjective, based on an individual’s political convictions.
“In today’s fractured information ecosystem, one person’s ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ is another’s truth,” – McKenzie Sadeghi
This perspective highlights the challenges faced by those attempting to navigate an information landscape where facts are often interpreted through partisan lenses. In part, in response, many psych and behavioral researchers have argued for adopting a more specific lexicon, an argument that is less open to mischief-making.
As author Peter Cunliffe-Jones advises in the book’s introduction, use simpler alternatives like “false claim,” which he argues provide a more accurate description the partisanship doesn’t set in motion. He contends that this method fosters meaningful engagement over inflammatory argument, not the toxic back-and-forth that many fear.
“That way, we hopefully create less room for cynical disputes and more for better understanding.” – Peter Cunliffe-Jones
Shifts in Research Terminology
As this debate proceeds, some professional organizations have already started to phase out the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation.” NewsGuard, for example, recently declared it would stop applying these labels, due to their controversial nature. This decision is part of a larger trend showing that these problematic terms can confuse more than they help when framing conversations around the accuracy of information.
The closure of the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) hub further illustrates the evolving landscape of disinformation research. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended this move by arguing it is crucial to safeguard the free speech rights of Americans.
“preserve and protect the freedom for Americans to exercise their free speech.” – Marco Rubio
With this closure, we witnessed an unprecedented proactive move by government entities to address the integrity of information. It’s an early indicator of a larger trend among researchers, who are making the decision to adopt less politically loaded language.
The Search for Clarity in Communication
A handful of academics and organizations continue to adamantly push for adopting the term “disinformation.” They believe it holds important prescriptive value. Brooking acknowledges that although the term has been politicized, it is an important tool for fighting back against manipulation of information.
“It’s true that the term has been politicized, and that using it can feel provocative—even dangerous,” – Brooking
He rightly says there needs to be precision in the way information is described. Some researchers have shifted towards terms that give readers context about the claim’s falseness or misleading nature.
“do not simply declare information false but explain the way in which information is untrue or misleading,” – Peter Cunliffe-Jones
Our researchers purposely use terms such as “false claims” and “unproven allegations” to foster a less hostile environment. This new strategy fosters honest conversations about the information ecosystem’s health, liberated from the toxicity associated with more punitive designations.