In the United States, “disinformation” is quickly becoming a highly contentious term. The label has grown so politicized in a hyper-polarized climate that some researchers studying the harmful effects of falsehoods are choosing to abandon it.
In an era of online deception and information manipulation, the study of disinformation seems more crucial than ever. However, researchers are now facing significant challenges, including federal funding cuts, an increase in abuse, and even death threats. This backlash is fueled in part by conservative accusations of a liberal bias in their work.
In response, some researchers are adopting more neutral language—words and technical jargon that are less likely to inflame or derail the critical public discourse about falsehoods spreading online. Earlier this year, the watchdog NewsGuard announced it was dropping the labels “misinformation” and “disinformation,” stating that these terms have become “politicised beyond recognition and turned into partisan weapons by actors on the right and the left, and among anti-democratic foreign actors.”
NewsGuard renamed its “Misinformation Fingerprints” database to “False Claim Fingerprints,” opting for what it called “more precise” and “harder to hijack” language. NewsGuard’s McKenzie Sadeghi explained, “A simple phrase like ‘false claim’ is more powerful and precise than ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation.’ It names the problem plainly and directs attention to the content itself—without triggering partisan reflexes or rhetorical spin.”
‘A Fractured Information Ecosystem’ Terms like “fake news,” “misinformation,” and “disinformation” existed before the internet, but they have never been more heavily used as weapons by governments and special interests to silence critics and block legitimate debate. Peter Cunliffe-Jones, author of the book Fake News—What’s the harm, advocates for using more specific alternatives such as “false,” “unproven,” “mislabelled,” or “fabricated.” He argues that such labels “do not simply declare information false but explain the way in which information is untrue or misleading.” This, he believes, will “create less room for cynical disputes and more for better understanding.”
Governments, including Russia, routinely dismiss credible Western media reports as disinformation. Some states have even co-opted fact-checking itself, launching state-sponsored “fact checks” to legitimize their own propaganda. Sadeghi pointed out, “In today’s fractured information ecosystem, one person’s ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ is another’s truth. And in that ambiguity, bad actors win.”
‘Provocative and Dangerous’ This debate is unfolding as major tech platforms are rolling back key anti-misinformation measures, including scaling down content moderation and reducing their reliance on human fact-checkers. These fact-checkers, for their part, reject accusations of liberal bias.
However, Emerson Brooking from the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) argues that abandoning the term “disinformation” is problematic because it lacks a clear replacement to describe the intent to deceive. “This idea of intentionality is very important,” he told AFP. “If we see thousands of fake accounts posting a false claim in unison, we can reasonably describe it as a disinformation campaign.”
The label has become so politicized that officials in President Donald Trump’s administration have equated disinformation research with censorship. Following Trump’s executive order on “ending federal censorship,” the National Science Foundation recently canceled hundreds of grants, including projects supporting disinformation research. In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio shut down the State Department’s Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (R/FIMI) hub, which was responsible for tracking and countering disinformation from foreign actors. Rubio justified the closure by saying it was the government’s responsibility to “preserve and protect the freedom for Americans to exercise their free speech.”
“It’s true that the term (disinformation) has been politicised, and that using it can feel provocative—even dangerous,” Brooking said. “But so long as it has descriptive value, it should still be used. My organization fights authoritarian information manipulation around the world—if we start censoring our own language, we aren’t doing a good job.”
