Reconsidering the Term “Misinformation” in Public Discourse

In the era of digital information overload, researchers studying false information find themselves navigating not just professional challenges but social ones as well. This tension between academic terminology and everyday conversation is creating unexpected barriers for experts working to address one of society’s most pressing issues.

“What do you do for work?” While seemingly innocuous, this question can trigger complex reactions for those who study misinformation. Researchers report that outside academic circles, their professional focus often elicits confusion, discomfort, or even hostility from conversation partners.

The term “misinformation” itself appears to be at the heart of this communication breakdown. In academic settings, it serves as precise shorthand for false or misleading information regardless of intent – encompassing everything from rumors and hoaxes to scams and deepfakes. Among researchers, it connects to decades of scholarship spanning psychology, communication studies, and information science.

However, in everyday conversation, the term carries significantly different connotations. Rather than being perceived as a neutral description, it often sounds accusatory to those unfamiliar with its academic usage. The implicit message many hear is “you’re wrong” or “you’ve been fooled,” creating an immediate defensive reaction that shuts down productive dialogue.

Science communicators who were active during the COVID-19 pandemic have particularly noted this phenomenon. Many discovered through direct feedback that their use of the term “misinformation” was actually preventing their messages from reaching the audiences who could benefit most from them.

“Your content is great. People need it. But it would help if you stopped using the word ‘misinformation.’ That turns a lot of people off, and they’ll stop listening to you,” one researcher was told by someone close to them – feedback that transformed their communication approach.

The problem extends beyond just the term itself. Labels like “anti-vaxxer” or “conspiracy theorist” can further alienate people by seemingly dismissing entire groups as unworthy of engagement. This “othering” effect cuts off communication channels with both the individual being labeled and anyone who might identify with them.

Experts suggest that more productive conversations occur when focusing less on specific claims and more on underlying concerns. Behind questionable information often lie legitimate issues of trust, fear, or uncertainty that merit exploration. Shifting from “That claim isn’t true” to “What makes you skeptical of the healthcare system?” creates space for empathy while still moving toward factual accuracy.

The framing of questions also proves crucial. Communication specialists recommend using “how” questions rather than “why” questions to reduce defensiveness. Questions like “How do you know this is true?” or “How confident are you in this claim?” invite reflection rather than provoking justification.

This approach aligns with research showing that thoughtful group discussions can reduce polarization. By encouraging mutual curiosity rather than correction, both parties in a conversation remain engaged long enough to potentially influence each other’s thinking.

For those who study false information professionally, this creates a practical dilemma. While “misinformation” remains a valuable and precise term in academic and professional contexts, many researchers now consciously avoid leading with it in casual or public-facing conversations. Instead, they focus on building rapport and understanding before addressing specific concerns about information accuracy.

This linguistic balancing act reflects a broader challenge in addressing societal information problems: the very terminology developed to address the issue can sometimes hinder the connection needed to solve it. By prioritizing connection over correction, experts hope to create the conditions for more productive conversations about the accuracy and reliability of information – even if that means temporarily setting aside the academic terminology that defines their work.