1.2 Definition of misinformation, disinformation, mal-information, and fake news
While it takes seconds to land on a news source, it takes much more time to absorb and evaluate what we read. While we know that authoritarian regimes control and censor information, a series of scandals showed that democratic governments can also mislead the public with the cooperation of the media. This can undermine the public faith in official narratives presented by mainstream sources, which leads to alternative newspapers, radio shows and cable tv, and more recently with the internet, social media posts, blogs, online videos, etc. that can turn every citizen into a potential reporter. Different sources may disagree not only on opinions, but on facts themselves. So, how do we reach the truth? In this topic, we will explore the vast array of information we call “fake news” but should be called otherwise. This is a term that became popular after the 2016 US presidential election, and it seems to be evreywhere. So, what does it really mean and is it useful in understanding the rise of false content we come across online, or do we need more concepts to capture its complexity?
‘Fake news’ was the term of the year by the Collins English Dictionary in 2017, the same year when the World Economic Forum addressed the problem of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in their risk assessment. As we know, manipulation and propaganda are age-old practices, so what exactly has changed in recent years? The US presidential campaigns of 2016 were organised in a strategic, well-financed manner, with a professional team and an intent to influence – either domestic or foreign – political processes. Furthermore, new, and emerging technologies have made it so much easier to organise such campaigns, making it accessible to a wider public faster and with less risk. Scholars argue that the term ‘fake news’ is inadequate to describe the complex phenomenon of mis- and disinformation, which does not only involve “fake”, but also fabricated content and practices that go beyond conventional “news”. Another reason it is misleading, is the fact that the term has been appropriated by some politicians and the wider public to dismiss any content they regard as disagreeable. Therefore, when addressing falsified content, the more elaborated terms of mis- and disinformatio should be used. Let’s take a look at their definitions below.
As defined by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group, disinformation is: “all forms of false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit”. Even though this definition reflects the broad definition of fake news, it is a less contentious and less politically charged term, therefore, ‘disinformation’ is favoured by institutions and bodies. The key element of disinformation, is the intentionality of the ‘author’ to cause harm.
Misinformation differs from ‘disinformation’ in terms of the intentionality of the author, or publisher to share false news. This happens when false information is shared, but no harm is meant, usually because of a poorly informed party. This subtle but important distinction may contribute to a better understanding of whether to assign responsibility to those involved in the dissemination of disinformation.
Mal-information refers to the phenomenon when a genuine information is shared, with the intention to inflict harm on a person, an organisation, or a country.
Fake News:
‘Fake news’ was the term of the year by the Collins English Dictionary in 2017, the same year when the World Economic Forum addressed the problem of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in their risk assessment. As we know, manipulation and propaganda are age-old practices, so what exactly has changed in recent years? The US presidential campaigns of 2016 were organised in a strategic, well-financed manner, with a professional team and an intent to influence – either domestic or foreign - political processes. Furthermore, new, and emerging technologies have made it so much easier to organise such campaigns, making it accessible to a wider public faster and with less risk. Scholars argue that the term ‘fake news’ is inadequate to describe the complex phenomenon of mis- and disinformation, which does not only involve “fake”, but also fabricated content and practices that go beyond conventional “news”. Another reason it is misleading, is the fact that the term has been appropriated by some politicians and the wider public to dismiss any content they regard as disagreeable. Therefore, when addressing falsified content, the more elaborated terms of mis- and disinformatio should be used. Let’s take a look at their definitions below.
Disinformation:
As defined by the European Commission’s High-Level Expert Group, disinformation is: “all forms of false, inaccurate, or misleading information designed, presented and promoted to intentionally cause public harm or for profit”. Even though this definition reflects the broad definition of fake news, it is a less contentious and less politically charged term, therefore, ‘disinformation’ is favoured by institutions and bodies. The key element of disinformation, is the intentionality of the ‘author’ to cause harm.
Misinformation:
Misinformation differs from ‘disinformation’ in terms of the intentionality of the author, or publisher to share false news. This happens when false information is shared, but no harm is meant, usually because of a poorly informed party. This subtle but important distinction may contribute to a better understanding of whether to assign responsibility to those involved in the dissemination of disinformation.
Mal-information:
Mal-information refers to the phenomenon when a genuine information is shared, with the intention to inflict harm on a person, an organisation, or a country.
| Definition | Example | |
| Misinformation | When false information is shared, but no harm is meant. | During the 2016 US presidential elections, a tweet about a ‘rigged’ voting machine in Philadelphia was shared more than 11 000 times. It was later established that the original tweet was a mistake made by a voter who had failed to follow the instructions exhibited on the voting machine |
| Disinformation | When false information is knowingly shared to cause harm. | During the 2017 French presidential elections, a duplicate version of the Belgian newspaper Le Soir was created, with a false article claiming that Emmanuel Macron was being funded by Saudi Arabia |
| Malinformation | When genuine information is shared to cause harm. | One example is the intentional leakage of a politician’s private emails, as seen during the presidential elections in France. |
Source: Wardle, C. and Derakhshan H. in Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework (2017)
As we’ve seen the distinction between the terms is based on the level of facticity and the intent to harm. All the terms have been defined and redefined in different contexts, and this cacophony of definitions poses an obstacle in the ability to design an effective response to address it. However, there is a growing consensus among public policy actors against using the term ‘fake news’ and in favour of using the term ‘disinformation’ to describe what generally is understood as false or misleading information produced to intentionally cause harm or for profit.
Now that we have understood the distinct nature of each of the definitions and have equipped ourselves with the correct language, we can better identify what false information we come across. In the infographic below, you can see further types of misleading news. Once you are ready, you can proceed to the activity!
