Is it ever okay to repeat falsehoods?
A common question I’m asked is whether it’s ever okay to repeat a falsehood to address it head-on. Understandably, people are concerned that repeating disinformation, even to mythbust, might only serve to aid its spread. And sometimes, this is true.
The Workshop is an example of a fantastic local organisation that provides solid advice to avoid repeating falsehoods. I really appreciate their work on using narratives and framings to talk about complex issues in accessible ways.
It’s important to think about the context of the falsehood you’re seeking to clarify, and understand that researchers grappling with this very issue find no clean answer. I don’t believe there’s any value in taking a dogmatic approach to never repeating false information, even to correct it. I think at this point in the disinformation crisis, we can say pretty confidently that this approach hasn’t been a silver bullet.
Experts call the fear of accidentally spreading disinformation the “familiarity backfire effect”, and while it’s an important consideration, it’s not an effect that researchers have always been able to replicate in their studies on how to prevent it. From as early as 2020, researchers were dubious about dogmatic approaches to never repeating COVID disinformation, and there’s an increasing body of evidence that this backfire effect may not be as present as originally thought. Further emerging research is showing that this partly depends on the perceived reliability of the source that’s correcting the falsehood.
In my view, there are many times when naming the false information is an important part of combating it. However, as with anything in communications, there are ways to do this badly and ways to do this well. The balance of getting this right relies on asking yourself two questions:
Is it likely that this falsehood has gained some credibility with everyday people?
Am I being realistic about what this messaging can achieve?
For example, the idea that vaccines can cause health issues is something that can, and has, gained credibility with everyday people. That’s because there’s an element of truth to this - a small segment of the population who have specific health issues can experience harm from some vaccines.
Confusion around this is something that disinformation spreaders seek to expand on and exploit.
That’s why I really like some of the recent immunisation mythbusting from Health NZ where they take some of the myths around immunisations (like the now thoroughly debunked links between the MMR vaccine and autism) and debunk them head-on.
However, an example of doing this head-on approach badly would be if an organisation whose purpose was to advocate for a marginalised ethnic group did a mythbusting campaign that said:
“You may have heard that this ethnic group secretly controls the world and has access to a secret space laser program, but that’s not true and here’s why!”.
This is an example of sharing a falsehood that is unlikely to have much (if any) credibility with everyday people. In this instance, sharing it is counterproductive.
For the second consideration when deciding how to approach mythbusting, it pays to be clear-eyed and realistic about what audiences you can influence with your messaging. Disinformation seeks to undermine people’s trust in information sources and subject matter experts by framing them as being part of a grand, organised deception of the general public. This means that people who are stuck deep down a rabbit hole of disinformation won’t be won over by mythbusting from official sources, which they perceive to be part of the problem.
I love the Hamilton City Council’s new Myths and Misunderstandings page, but it’s unlikely that anyone who believes HCC is part of the deep state will read this and go,
“Oh, they said they aren’t doing that, so I believe them. I guess I should stop cyberbullying local Councillors, delete Telegram from my phone and try and reconnect with my adult children who haven’t spoken to me in years.”
But, given how prevalent myths about climate change, sustainable transport and global agendas have become within some New Zealand communities, addressing these falsehoods head-on can play an important role in inoculating everyday people against the disinformation they have almost certainly been exposed to.
These everyday people - who represent the vast majority of thoughtful, critically-minded New Zealanders - are unlikely to believe that the Hamilton City Council is part of a nefarious global agenda simply because they read it online. And, having the HCC speak to these falsehoods head-on and provide correct information helps act as a ‘back pocket’ protection for everyday people when they come across those falsehoods.
The last thing I’ll say here is that I personally find it refreshing, honest and authentic whenever an organisation that has been subjected to 5+ years of disinformation-based targeting comes out boldly with the falsehoods they’ve been targeted by.
The idea that communications people should be keeping an eye on the rising tide of disinformation that seeks to harm or undermine their work, their communities and often them as individuals, but never speak to it publicly - even to correct it - is something that can inadvertently create a chilling effect on public communications and engagement.
If that approach worked, we wouldn’t be in the situation we’re in right now. So, why not try something new, responsibly, and with more realistic measures of success?
