Information - Mis or Dis

Getting Information Right The First Time

Many people in the news media and on social media accuse other people of promoting misinformation and disinformation. What do they mean by that? Who’s right? Who’s wrong? Lots of questions, so let’s look for answers from a journalistic perspective.

Journalists are, or at least should be, wordsmiths. That means using words correctly and skillfully. Since many journalists are using the words ‘misinformation' and ‘disinformation’ to describe what other people are saying or writing, we should expect that the journalists know the meaning of the terms and are using them correctly and skillfully.

With that in mind, let’s define three important words —

• Information

• Misinformation

• Disinformation

What Is Information?

Information is basically “facts, knowledge” —

knowledge that you get about someone or something : facts or details about a subject — Merriam-Webster

facts about a situation, person, event, etc — Cambridge Dictionary

facts provided or learned about something or someone — Oxford Languages

Information is usually “news” to someone — something they didn’t know until somebody else told them —

knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news — Dictionary.com

What Is Misinformation?

Misinformation is basically information that is “untrue, false” —

Untrue or incorrect information; false account or intelligence — The Century Dictionary

incorrect or misleading information — Merriam-Webster

wrong information, or the fact that people are misinformed — Cambridge Dictionary

What Is Disinformation?

Disinformation is similar to misinformation, but includes the intent to deliberately deceive the public —

false information spread in order to deceive people — Cambridge Dictionary

false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth — Merriam-Webster

The dissemination of intentionally false information to deliberately confuse or mislead — The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition

Using Words Correctly and Skillfully

Getting information right is job number one for journalists. Using words correctly and skillfully is part of that job. If you’re a journalist, I hope you agree. If you’re a news consumer, I’m pretty sure you agree based on what multiple surveys tell us about what the public wants from the news media — the truth.

When someone in the news media or on social media accuses another person of misinformation, they should use the word correctly. It means that the other person is sharing information that is false and misleading. They may be uninformed or misinformed about a particular topic themselves. Anyone can misinform people unintentionally. We’re all human. It happens. However, once someone gives them the correct information, the misinformation should no longer be a problem because the “misinformer” has been informed. Sharing truth with formerly uninformed or misinformed people should lead to an increase in the number of truth-tellers in society.

When someone in the news media or on social media accuses another person of disinformation, they should use the word correctly. It means that the other person is sharing false and misleading information intentionally for the purpose of deliberately confusing and misleading the public. That means the “disinformer” knows the information they are sharing is untrue and are sharing it for bad purposes.

Based on what I’ve seen and heard from the news media and in social media during the past few years, I believe many people are either misusing the terms misinformation and disinformation or not using the words with the necessary qualification and context. In some instances, journalists have used both terms (misinformation and disinformation) in ways that are logically fallacious.

Saying that someone is guilty of mis or dis information without giving any context or reason for the name calling is just that — name calling. If someone is a proven liar, calling them a liar is not wrong as long as we include context (e.g. proven guilty of lying by judicial ruling, admitted to lying, etc). However, if we call someone a liar with little to no evidence that they are in fact lying, then calling them a liar is wrong.

How Journalists Can Misuse The Terms

The terms misinformation and disinformation are often used in stories and in anchor-reporter banter or anchor-expert conversations without defining the words or giving any context for the news consumer to consider. They just refer to people’s words as mis or disinformation without any explanation for why they used the terms. That’s an example of how journalists can misuse the terms.

It sometimes seems that journalists expect people to believe anything they say without having to explain why they believe something to be true. Real journalism doesn’t work that way. Journalists can and should be held accountable for how they use language. Misuse is not acceptable.

Journalists should always support text with context. News reporting should always exemplify the highest standards of accuracy and objectivity.

News Consumer Response

A news consumer who happens to lean politically or socially in a similar direction to the reporter, anchor or expert, will probably agree with the name calling. A news consumer who happens to lean in a different direction than the reporter, anchor or expert, will usually disagree with the name calling. That plays into the public’s growing distrust of the news media. Not good.

One other question about misinformation is: Who determines what is true or false? Is it the journalists? The news media companies? Social media companies? News consumers? Who are the people “fact checking” information in news stories? [We’ll look at fact checkers in a future newsletter.]

A claim that someone is guilty of “misinformation” should include the correct “information” and an explanation about why the misinformation is false. As I’ve watched this increasing trend toward accusing people of spreading misinformation and disinformation, it’s rare to find the accuser pointing to evidence for what is the true information and the basis upon which they know it to be true.

Headlines in print and lower-third banners in television are also ways of claiming someone is guilty of spreading “mis” or “dis” information. Those are usually written by editors or producers. Editors and producers often write their headlines and banners before they see a reporter’s approved script. Every news department should have a system to check headlines and banners against finished scripts to ensure they reflect the truth of a story. News managers should hold editors and producers to the same standards as reporters and anchors.

If evidence exists for mis or disinformation, journalists should objectively include that as part of their stories. If evidence doesn’t exist, journalists should not call people names in their stories. Real journalism is about telling the truth and serving in the public interest — not promoting personal opinions in the guise of reporting the news.

Looking Back to Look Ahead

The reason I say that is simple. Look back at news media stories and social media posts from the last few years and compare them with current information. Many of the things that journalists termed as misinformation (false information that misleads the public) even a year or two years ago are now known to be true information. In fact, what was once deemed by some journalists to be false information is now reported by those same journalists to now be true. A quick glance at before-and-after news videos or articles shows how quickly some journalists changed their positions on stories that deeply impacted society.

Unfortunately, many journalists don’t admit errors in their previous stories — even though anyone who watches or reads the news regularly knows the information changed. That is confusing to a public that already deeply distrusts the media. Until journalists make finding and reporting truth their highest priority, along with correcting errors from previous stories, we will continue to have a big divide between journalists and news consumers.

Why?

Why would journalists have called something misinformation or disinformation just last year or the year before that they now report to be true? That’s an important question for journalists to ask themselves. Getting answers to that question and using the knowledge that comes from getting answers could mean a better future for journalism. I’ll explain how that could work in a couple of minutes.

First, let’s look at some possible answers to this question —

Why would journalists have called something misinformation or disinformation just a year ago (even months ago) that is now known to be true?

Let me know in the comments section below if you think of some other possible reasons —

• The information a journalist once thought was true was later discovered to be false

• The journalist depended on faulty source(s) for their original story

• The journalist committed a logical fallacy at the beginning of coverage and compounded that error by continuing to use fallacious logic in reporting the story

• The journalist used the terms “misinformation” or “disinformation” in their stories or comments without defining the terms and giving appropriate context

• The journalist did not explain why they used the terms (misinformation, disinformation) in their stories or comments so the public would understand both the reason and the journalistic process that led to the use of the terms

• The journalist used the terms purposely because of a personal or corporate bias/agenda — they committed an act of disinformation themselves by attributing mis or disinformation to other people

Of all the possible reasons, in my opinion, the last one is the worst. Many news consumers believe journalism has become an outlet for disinformation to serve the agendas of giant media organizations. Journalists who realize they have such a deep personal bias or fear of their employer that they would intentionally use their position to purposely mislead the public should do one or both of the following immediately —

1. Resign from journalism

2. Publicly report that some of their reporting has been disinformation and why they did it — then resign from journalism

Bad journalists can change their ways, but I recommend public apology and resignation first. Any journalist who has purposely misled the public, whether because of personal bias or corporate pressure, should not be involved in journalism. The “slaps on the wrists” that some stations, networks, and newspapers have given to offending journalists, anchors, and hosts are not doing anything to improve the current problem of distrust in the news media. Suspending an offending member of the media for a week or two doesn’t cut it with news consumers. It takes longer than a couple of weeks for an offending journalist to really change their poor methods of uncritical thinking.

Unacceptable

Whatever the reason, none of the above are acceptable. It is never right for a journalist to call people names or purposely mislead the public. As a former news manager for more than three decades, I can tell you what I would have done if a journalist did any of those things. I would have given the journalist one warning, told them to re-do the story with the corrected information and context, apologize to the audience for what they did, and explain why they did it. If they refused to do that, I would fire them immediately for cause. If they did correct the story and publicly apologize, I would probably give them a second chance (unless they already had their second chance). I think that would go a long way to rebuilding public trust in the news media. The public wants to see people in the news media held accountable for their wrong actions.

I hold news managers accountable for allowing things to come to such a bad state in journalism. If managers aren’t going to enforce the basics of honest and ethical journalism, who will? When I see a journalist abuse their position and not correct their story or be reprimanded publicly, I know there’s a problem in management. Some managers will eventually act on an errant journalist or story after receiving a lot of backlash from the public, but that’s not good enough. Managers need to do the right thing right away, not wait until they get caught or have to cave to public pressure.

When news managers with solid journalism skills take back the newsrooms in our country, we will be on our way to a better future for everyone.

What If The Information Is Misinformation?

This is not to say there are not people intent on misleading the public. I covered many people in government and business who lied in their official capacities. They misled and deceived the public for reasons of personal greed and a desire to hold on to power. I covered many people who claimed to be innocent of crimes, until they were found to have committed the crimes. People do lie, so what should a journalist do to be sure they uncover the lies?

Part of being a good journalist is being skeptical, especially about what powerful people say and do. Journalists should point out information that is wrong. They should reveal the names and intentions of people who purposely mislead the public. What’s the best way to do that? Through a solid and well-defined process of real journalism — where facts matter more than political or social leanings. [We’ll be looking at that in greater detail in future newsletters.]

One thing I would say for now is that journalists should report the truth instead of calling names or making sweeping generalizations about people with whom they disagree. Reporters should report the truth and use evidence to point to the people who are spreading false information. Good reporting can also point to people who purposely misinform and are guilty of disinformation without calling them names. Report the truth and demonstrate through your factual storytelling that what someone else said was disinformation.

Solid reporting is what we need in the news media today. If journalists do their jobs according to the proven path of good journalism and a desire to serve in the public interest, the truth will be told. Though it will take time, the public’s confidence in the news media can be restored or at least improved greatly.

Next Newsletter

We’ll take a closer look at the importance of journalistic “objectivity” in the next newsletter.

Comments Welcome

I hope these thoughts are helpful to you as a journalist or news consumer. Please share your comments and I’ll respond as quickly as I can. If you like what we’re doing in this newsletter, please let your friends know about it so they can subscribe.

Newsletter Purpose

The purpose of this newsletter is to help journalists understand how to do real journalism and the public know how they can find news they can trust on a daily basis. It’s a simple purpose, but complicated to accomplish. We’ll do our best to make it as clear as we can in future newsletters.

1960s Radio News, © Mark McGee