The Disinformation Dilemma: Researchers Navigate a Minefield of Politicization and Threats
The digital age has ushered in an unprecedented wave of online deception and information manipulation, making the study of disinformation more critical than ever. However, researchers dedicated to understanding and combating the spread of falsehoods find themselves in a precarious position, facing funding cuts, escalating online abuse, and even death threats. This hostile environment is fueled, in part, by accusations of liberal bias from conservative advocates, creating a chilling effect on vital research. The very term “disinformation” has become a political lightning rod, so much so that some researchers are abandoning it altogether in favor of less charged language. This shift reflects the increasing polarization surrounding the issue and the challenges of conducting objective research in a highly politicized climate.
The controversy surrounding “disinformation” stems from its perceived association with partisan agendas. Organizations like NewsGuard have recognized this issue, opting to replace terms like “misinformation” and “disinformation” with more neutral alternatives like “false claim.” This move aims to depoliticize the conversation and focus attention on the factual accuracy of content, rather than triggering pre-conceived notions or partisan reflexes. The goal is to establish a more objective framework for identifying and addressing online falsehoods, one that avoids the semantic baggage that has come to surround the term “disinformation.” By using more precise and less loaded terminology, researchers hope to foster more productive dialogue and facilitate a clearer understanding of the problem.
The weaponization of terms like “fake news,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation” by governments and vested interests further complicates the issue. These labels are frequently employed to silence critics, discredit legitimate debate, and manipulate public opinion. Authoritarian regimes, in particular, routinely dismiss credible reporting as “disinformation” to undermine trust in independent media. Some governments have even established state-sponsored “fact-checking” initiatives, not to promote accuracy, but to legitimize their own propaganda and spin. This manipulation of language erodes public trust and makes it increasingly difficult to discern fact from fiction, creating a fractured information ecosystem where objective truth becomes elusive.
In this polarized environment, the concept of “truth” itself has become contested. What one side considers “misinformation,” another may perceive as legitimate dissent. This ambiguity creates fertile ground for bad actors to exploit, further muddying the waters and hindering efforts to combat online deception. The withdrawal of major tech platforms from key anti-misinformation measures, such as content moderation and reliance on human fact-checkers, exacerbates the problem. While these fact-checkers face accusations of bias, their role in identifying and flagging false information is crucial.
Furthermore, the debate over terminology obscures a fundamental aspect of disinformation: intent. The deliberate creation and dissemination of false information with the intention to deceive – the very essence of disinformation – requires a distinct term to capture its malicious nature. While acknowledging the politicization of the term, researchers like Emerson Brooking of the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) emphasize the importance of retaining the concept of intentionality when analyzing online manipulation. Identifying coordinated campaigns involving networks of fake accounts spreading false narratives is crucial to understanding and countering disinformation efforts.
Regrettably, the politicization of “disinformation” has extended to the realm of research funding. Following former US President Donald Trump’s executive order on “ending federal censorship,” the National Science Foundation cancelled numerous grants, including those supporting disinformation research. Additionally, the closure of the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference hub by then-Senator Marco Rubio, under the guise of protecting free speech, further hampered efforts to combat foreign disinformation campaigns. While acknowledging the sensitivities surrounding the term, researchers maintain that censoring language itself is counterproductive. The fight against authoritarian information manipulation requires clear and precise terminology, even if those terms have become politically charged. The chilling effect created by these political pressures underscores the urgent need to protect and support research into online deception, regardless of the labels used.
