Rising Concern: Amplification Strategies Expand Reach of Misinformation

In a digital age dominated by rapid information spread, health communicators face a delicate balancing act when confronting misinformation. This challenge was highlighted recently when former President Donald Trump briefly shared, then deleted, an AI-generated video on Truth Social promoting “medbeds” – a fictitious technology at the center of a long-standing conspiracy theory that allegedly cures all diseases and reverses aging.

The incident exemplifies the “amplification dilemma” that plagues public health messaging. While mainstream media outlets including ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and Forbes quickly debunked the claims, their coverage inadvertently extended the reach of this medical misinformation to audiences previously unaware of it.

“Health communicators persistently struggle with correcting false information without amplifying claims that might have gone unnoticed,” notes Drew Altman, President and CEO of KFF. In previous statements, Altman acknowledged that while media “likely has no choice when politicians spread false information but to cover it and correct the lies in the process,” careful consideration must be given to the approach.

This phenomenon operates through several mechanisms that can inadvertently boost misinformation. Social media algorithms prioritize content generating strong reactions – whether agreement or criticism – meaning posts debunking false claims can travel as far as, or even farther than, the original misinformation. News coverage that triggers emotional responses like fear or surprise tends to spread more widely across networks.

Psychological factors also play a significant role. The “illusory truth effect” means that simply being exposed repeatedly to a false claim increases its perceived plausibility, even when presented alongside corrections. Recent studies suggest neither fact-checking nor media literacy interventions fully mitigate the effects of repeated exposure to misinformation.

Perhaps most concerning, any reporting on false claims – even corrective coverage – extends their lifespan in public discourse, allowing them to resurface and influence perceptions over time.

The problem intensifies during periods of societal uncertainty and diminished institutional trust. KFF’s Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust reveals concerning partisan divides, with many Republicans reporting greater trust in health information from Trump than from established health authorities like the CDC or FDA.

In such fragmented information environments, even thoroughly debunked claims can have indirect effects. Exposure to conspiracy theories and subsequent corrections can erode trust in health authorities by reinforcing existing skepticism. People might reject specific false claims while absorbing broader narratives about institutional untrustworthiness, making them more resistant to accurate information in the future.

Health communicators are developing strategies to navigate these challenges. Prebunking – providing accurate information and explaining misinformation tactics before false claims gain traction – shows promise for building audience resilience. This approach fills knowledge gaps with facts while highlighting how misinformation spreads, without repeating the false claims themselves.

When misinformation has already reached what KFF calls “the muddled middle” – Americans uncertain about health information – strategic debunking becomes necessary. The Public Health Communication Collaborative recommends a structured approach: begin with clearly stated facts, provide context about the misinformation and tactics used, then reinforce with accurate information.

Building institutional trust remains fundamental to effective health communication. Research indicates that misinformation persists largely because of underlying distrust in official sources. Strengthening community relationships, amplifying trusted voices, and maintaining consistent messaging can reduce the appeal of conspiracy theories more effectively than individual corrections.

“Misinformation is not just about what is said, but how it spreads,” explains one health communication expert. “By anticipating false narratives and using communication strategies strategically, we can limit harmful claims while supporting better-informed communities.”

As the digital information landscape evolves, health authorities continue refining their approach to the amplification dilemma – recognizing that sometimes the most effective response to emerging misinformation may not be immediate correction, but rather proactive messaging that builds information resilience before false claims take root.