The Problem with “Fake News”: Why Terminology Matters in the Fight Against Misinformation

The term “fake news” has become deeply embedded in public discourse, but its widespread use may be doing more harm than good to our collective understanding of information challenges.

According to Stine Bergersen, Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), what people commonly label as “fake news” actually falls into two distinct categories. It’s either legitimate journalism that some disagree with or don’t want to believe, or it’s various forms of problematic information that require more precise classification.

“When we lump all these concepts together under the umbrella term ‘fake news,’ we lose the ability to distinguish between intention, method, and effect,” Bergersen explains. This confusion undermines both professional precision and our shared understanding of reality.

Information specialists typically identify three distinct categories: disinformation (deliberately false information spread to manipulate), misinformation (false information shared without malicious intent), and malinformation (accurate information used in misleading or harmful ways). These distinctions are crucial for developing effective countermeasures.

Recent events in Norway illustrate the real-world implications of information confusion. Multiple drone observations over Norwegian territory created uncertainty that appeared to be a goal in itself – not necessarily to cause physical harm but to sow doubt. Using vague terminology like “fake news” can exacerbate this problem by casting suspicion on legitimate news sources and undermining trust in media, authorities, and fellow citizens.

The language challenge extends beyond mere semantics. “‘Fake news’ is not a politically neutral term,” Bergersen notes. The phrase exploded in popularity following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, appearing in thousands of Norwegian newspaper articles. However, its popularization and politicization by former President Donald Trump – who used it as a rhetorical weapon against unfavorable coverage – adds another problematic dimension.

“News, as in a report of recent events, is not true or false: news is news, whether we like it or not,” Bergersen emphasizes. The conflation of terms has real consequences, potentially hampering cross-sector threat assessments and creating obstacles to effective coordination and targeted countermeasures.

Norway has begun taking concrete steps to address these challenges. In 2024, the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection included source criticism in its emergency preparedness advice for the first time. By June 2025, the government presented its first national strategy against disinformation, which aims to increase public awareness, improve detection capabilities, and strengthen cooperation among various stakeholders.

The strategy is linked to Norway’s broader Total Preparedness Report and the government’s focus on digital security, recognizing disinformation as a threat to national security and stability. As part of these initiatives, the Norwegian Media Authority has received increased funding to enhance critical media literacy among citizens.

Regulatory attention has also turned toward technology platforms, which can spread disinformation faster than editorial content can be produced. However, Bergersen argues that the success of all these initiatives depends on establishing a shared understanding of the problem, beginning with clarifying basic terminology.

“‘Fake news’ is a term without a fixed definition and is used to describe everything from satire and misinformation to targeted disinformation and journalism one dislikes,” she explains. “Such a loaded and imprecise term oversimplifies a complex problem and weakens our ability to address it.”

Bergersen calls for a public discussion to clarify terms regarding hostile information activities and related phenomena. She contends that abandoning the term “fake news” would be a small but significant step toward reducing conceptual confusion and preserving the integrity of what news actually represents.

These issues were recently addressed at the PRIO-organized “2025 Oscarsborg Symposium on Nordic Security,” reflecting growing regional concern about information threats to democratic institutions in Scandinavia and beyond.