The term “disinformation” has become contentious in the U.S., prompting some researchers to abandon it due to a hyperpolarized political climate and accusations of bias. As falsehoods proliferate online, understanding disinformation is crucial, yet researchers face federal funding cuts and threats, often labeled as biased by conservative advocates. NewsGuard recently replaced its “misinformation” and “disinformation” labels, citing their politicization, and adopted the term “False Claim Fingerprints” to maintain neutrality.
Terms like “fake news” and “disinformation” have been weaponized by governments and interest groups to silence dissent. Advocates like Peter Cunliffe-Jones suggest using specific terms that explain how information is misleading, which may foster better understanding. Authoritarian states, particularly Russia, often dismiss credible media as disinformation, leading to a fractured information ecosystem where one person’s “misinformation” can be another’s truth.
As major tech platforms decrease content moderation, Emerson Brooking warns that abandoning “disinformation” may obscure the intentional nature of deceptive practices. Despite its politicized nature, he argues that the term remains valuable for describing intentional misinformation campaigns. Recent actions, including the closure of the State Department’s disinformation tracking hub, highlight the tension between free speech and combating false information.
