Why ‘Misinformation’ May Not Always Be the Correct Term

The word “misinformation” has become increasingly contentious in American discourse, creating unexpected barriers to the very conversations it was meant to facilitate, according to researchers who study false information.

Matthew Facciani, an academic who researches misinformation and authored a book on the subject, has observed a striking shift in how people respond when he describes his profession. While fellow academics typically respond with interest, conversations with the general public can quickly become uncomfortable or even hostile.

“I’ve realized that the word ‘misinformation’ carries a lot of emotional baggage in everyday conversation,” Facciani notes. “Sometimes, it can even get in the way of the meaningful dialogue I’m hoping to have.”

The problem stems from a significant gap between academic and everyday understandings of the term. In research contexts, misinformation refers specifically to false or misleading information regardless of intent – a neutral umbrella covering everything from rumors and hoaxes to scams and propaganda. It connects to decades of research in psychology, communication studies, and information science.

However, in casual conversation, the term often lands as an accusation rather than a description. Many hear it as implying “you’re wrong” or “you’ve been duped,” which can immediately shut down productive exchange.

Science communicator Kristen Panthagani experienced this firsthand during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite creating valuable content to combat false information, she received crucial feedback that changed her approach: “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.”

The issue extends beyond mere semantics. Labels like “misinformation,” “anti-vaxxer,” or “conspiracy theorist” don’t just challenge ideas – they can alienate entire groups. As physician Jacqueline Capriotti explained on the “Why Should I Trust You” podcast, such terminology signals to readers that “these people are not worth listening to,” simultaneously losing both the person who might have asked an honest question and readers who identify with them.

Communication experts suggest that once someone feels labeled or shamed, genuine dialogue becomes nearly impossible. The key to productive conversation isn’t avoiding disagreement but approaching it in ways that maintain engagement from all parties.

Another challenge with focusing on “misinformation” is that it narrows conversations to specific claims rather than addressing underlying concerns. When someone shares questionable information, the instinct to immediately fact-check can distract from deeper issues driving the belief.

“Often, people’s beliefs stem from broader fears, uncertainty, or a lack of trust,” Facciani explains. Rather than simply declaring “That claim isn’t true,” he suggests asking questions like “What makes you skeptical of doctors or the healthcare system?”

This approach doesn’t mean abandoning accuracy but creating space for empathy and understanding. By addressing fundamental trust issues, communicators can keep people engaged long enough to make progress and increase the likelihood their perspective will actually be heard.

Researchers recommend using “how” questions instead of “why” questions to encourage reflection rather than defensiveness:
– “How do you know this is true?”
– “How confident are you in this claim?”
– “How would this work in practice?”

These questions invite people to examine their reasoning without feeling attacked, whereas “why” questions can sound accusatory and cause people to become more entrenched in their views.

While “misinformation” remains valuable in academic contexts, its everyday use may impede the very communication it was designed to improve. By focusing less on correcting and more on connecting through shared experiences and genuine curiosity, researchers find people become far more receptive to new information and perspectives.

“Sometimes, avoiding the word misinformation altogether helps create the kind of dialogue that actually reduces it,” Facciani concludes.