The information flood and its pitfalls
Not every false piece of information is a lie, and not every harmful piece of information is false. Anyone who wants to check sources should therefore distinguish the most important terms cleanly. The most influential classification comes from Claire Wardle and Hossein Derakhshan in their report Information Disorder for the Council of Europe (2017). They distinguish along two questions: is the information false or true? And is there an intent to harm behind it?
| Term | False? | Intent to harm? | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Misinformation | yes | no | Someone shares a false rumour in good faith. |
| Disinformation | yes | yes | A made-up story is deliberately spread in order to do harm. |
| Malinformation | no | yes | Real private data or true facts torn out of context are used as a weapon. |
Source: Wardle & Derakhshan, Information Disorder, Council of Europe 2017 (PDF).
The crucial point: the difference between mis- and disinformation is not the truth content (both are false), but the intent. Whoever passes on a rumour unsuspectingly is engaging in misinformation; whoever invents it and spreads it deliberately, disinformation.
Misinformation = error. Disinformation = deception. Malinformation = truth used as a weapon.
Why „fake news“ is a bad term
The popular term „fake news“ sounds catchy, but it is of little use. Wardle and Derakhshan deliberately avoid it and call it „woefully inadequate“ for capturing the variety of „information pollution“.
Two problems:
- It is vague. Sometimes it means made-up stories, sometimes bad journalism, sometimes simply unwelcome reporting.
- It has become a weapon. Politicians use „fake news“ as a battle cry to discredit reputable media wholesale.
Experts therefore prefer the precise terms mis-, dis- and malinformation. We do so in this chapter too.
Why our brain is vulnerable
False information works because it exploits our psychology:
- Confirmation bias: we believe more readily what fits our opinion.
- Repetition effect: what we hear often we take to be truer („perceived truth“).
- Emotion beats checking: outrage, fear and enthusiasm make us share before we think.
- Speed: a lie is shared in seconds; its correction takes days.
These mechanisms are familiar from the chapter on cognitive biases. Source criticism is the deliberate countermeasure: it inserts a brief moment of checking between stimulus and response.
The most dangerous false report is the one we want to believe. Precisely with content that makes us immediately agree or feel outraged, checking pays off the most.
How this checking works in practice is shown on the next page, with the simplest and most effective method there is for it.