Violent incidents involving Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Customs & Border Protection, and other federal law enforcement agencies have captured the attention of Americans this year. In many cases, government statements have contradicted video footage and eyewitness accounts, clouding the public’s understanding of the facts. Journalists covering these events serve their audience best by carefully evaluating evidence even when it comes from government sources.
First, remember that immediately after a breaking news event, whether it is an airplane crash or a hurricane or a violent incident involving police, the available evidence will most likely be incomplete. Conclusions drawn in the heat of the moment often don’t hold up to later scrutiny when more is known. Despite this, news consumers’ initial impressions can be lasting, even when later evidence refutes early information.
During these moments, there are often few available sources beyond law enforcement or other government officials. It’s important to recognize that, despite their official roles and titles, these contacts can be sources of mis- and disinformation like any other source.
Misinformation and disinformation are different. Disinformation is designed to mislead, is spread intentionally, and has the goal of advancing one viewpoint or agenda. By contrast, misinformation can be entirely unintentional, like sharing something you think is true, but isn’t, or contributing to a genuine misinterpretation.
Research suggests people tend to place more weight on information that is familiar to them and confirms their existing beliefs. These effects can make false information hard to dislodge. Disinformation is particularly difficult to challenge when it’s backed by large, well-funded efforts or trusted government sources.
To spot false information: Check primary sources, such as videos of incidents, and multiple sources of evidence. Consider sources’ conflicts of interest, such as financial interests and political agendas.
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 some concern that debunking may backfire and reinforce falsehoods in some circumstances, but that is the subject of ongoing debate. If any effect exists, research suggests it’s small.)
You can work against misinformation and disinformation by publishing factual, contextualized information before false claims gain much traction. Some early research has found success with the strategy of “pre-bunking.”
- Forewarn your audience about bad-faith efforts to manipulate them.
- Focus on common tactics, such as misleading or selective framing and false balance. Highlight telltale patterns and language that tend to be used in false claims.
- 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.
- Research the range of possible falsehoods that might spread 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 pre-bunking to be shared.
To counter false information that’s already widely circulating:
- Don’t devote equal space to “both sides” of an issue just for the sake of “balance.” Instead, focus your coverage on evidence-based information.
- Consider how visuals can reinforce your message. For example, the frame of a video you choose to accompany your story can shape first impressions of who initiated an incident or how much force was used.
- Consider whom your audience trusts and expand your sourcing. Debunking messages that cite trusted community voices, such as clergy, can be powerful.
As you debunk claims, being transparent with your audience about what you do and don’t know builds trust.
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.
