Misinformed about Misinformation: On the polarizing discourse on misinformation and its consequences for the field

By: Irene V. Pasquetto, Gabrielle Lim & Samantha Bradshaw

For almost a decade, the study of misinformation has taken priority among policy circles, political elites, academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and the media. Substantial resources have been dedicated to identifying its effects, how and why it spreads, and how to mitigate its harm. Yet, despite these efforts, it can sometimes feel as if the field is no closer to answering basic questions about misinformation’s real-world impacts, such as its effects on elections or links to extremism and radicalization. 

Many of the conversations that we are having about the role of misinformation in society are incredibly polarizing (Bernstein, 2021), for example, Facebook significantly shaped the results of 2016 elections vs. Facebook did not affect the outcome of the 2016 elections; algorithm recommendations polarize social media users vs. algorithm recommendations do not polarize social media users; deep fakes and other AI generated content are a significant threat to elections, or they are not. On more than one occasion, this zero-sum framing of “the misinformation threat” has led politicians and commentators to point at misinformation as either the origin of all evil in the world or as a rhetorical concept invented by (other) politicians and their allies. 

Researching misinformation is challenging at the best of times. But to make things even more difficult, researchers, civil societies, journalists, and academic institutions are often under attack for covering these issues at all (Calo & Starbird, 2024). For example, some governments have passed misinformation laws to prevent journalists from challenging misinformation (Lim & Bradshaw, 2023), and since 2016, more than 120 journalists have been arrested or imprisoned under these laws (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2024). At the same time, academic institutions in the United States have closed following lawsuits against the universities and researchers for studying misinformation (Newton & Schiffer, 2024). Added to this, platforms are shutting down interventions that work and share data with researchers and civil societies, particularly in the Global South, leaving researchers with limited opportunities to study these harms (de Vreese & Tromble, 2023).  

For researchers and members of communities affected by misinformation, it is hard not to see the field in crisis. However, we see this as an inflection point and an opportunity to chart a more informed, community-oriented, and contextual research practice. By diversifying perspectives and grounding research in the experiences of those most affected, the field can move beyond the current polarization. In doing so, policy decisions regarding misinformation will not only be better informed and evidence-based, but realistic about what regulations can or cannot do.

Read the full article on the Harvard Misinformation Review.