We asked 30 experts why aggressive disinformation and propaganda have become so prevalent in public discourse, what can be done to counter it, and how to clean up the polarized public conversations it creates.

Here’s a snapshot of what we learned…

“The truth isn’t dying, it’s being killed. People do not wake up one day and spontaneously wonder if the California wildfires were caused by a Jewish space laser or if the COVID-19 vaccine might contain microchips.”

• Lee McIntyre (On Disinformation: How to Fight for Truth and Protect Democracy, p. 8)

Widespread access to the Internet and social media means that people today have access to vastly more information than previous generations. It is impossible for our brains to process all this information, so we process most of it very superficially. In this information environment, people get attention by ramping up the emotional intensity of their messages. Fear, anger and disgust are the most intense and stickiest emotions, so such messages get more engagement. Bad actors leverage these opportunities, sowing divisiveness conflict and polarization for their own gain.

• Thomas Homer-Dixon

The business models of social media platforms are anti-expert and pro-misinformation. They prioritize engagement metrics over information quality to maximize advertising revenue. 

• Filippo Menczer

Much of online abuse is driven by perceived violations of moral norms. This abuse often has a silencing effect on the victim, while reinforcing the norms and beliefs of the attackers.

• Alice Marwick

The information environment is more polluted today. There’s more low quality information, partly because there are more financial, social, and other incentives for people to create it. Misinformation is also getting worse because the world is getting more uncertain – people look for simple answers when health and democracy are messy. But rather than hyper focusing on playing whack a mole with atoms of false content, labelling things as mis- or disinformation, we need to think about this more from a narrative perspective. Disinformation is connected by common narratives. To address disinformation we need to understand and address its connecting narratives.

• Claire Wardle

The science of science communication and the history of human communication have taught us that successful public communication follows a formula: Simple, clear messages, repeated often by a variety of trusted, caring sources.

• Edward Maibach

It’s ethically imperative to counter disinformation, because when lying becomes commonplace, it makes democracy impossible. People can be inoculated against both polarization and mis/disinformation, decreasing their susceptibility to extreme views and false or misleading information.

• Stephan Lewandowsky

Fact based, source based, and technique based pre-bunking and debunking can counter disinformation. The technique based approach to pre/debunking can be more effective than source and fact-based because it can be used across multiple contexts, it can be more effectively used for pre-bunking, and it can avoid the risk of polarizing people further on an issue.

• John Cook

It may be more useful to focus on moderates and the uninformed rather than people with extreme beliefs. There are many more uninformed and moderates than people with strong beliefs or conspiracy ideation, and they are easier to convince, so this strategy leverages more room for improving overall engagement with high-quality information. 

• Sacha Altay

The conventional messaging approach of advocates, where they highlight how bad a problem is, is not effective for engaging people on issues. Instead, the effective message structure is values, villain, vision. Applying this to disinformation, we start with what is true, call out the lie, then reaffirm what is true while providing solutions. 

When addressing disinformation, describe the motivation of the people spreading the lie. Call out the villain in the active voice. Don’t just give the what, give the why.

• Anat Shenker-Osorio

Understanding people’s emotional experiences helps us understand how people become predisposed to believing disinformation. Respond to disinformation without making polarization worse by being empathetic, avoiding emotional pitfalls (e.g., avoid triggering negative emotions like shame, or guilt), and seeking shared values.

• Arlie Hochschild

Two sided messaging is an effective way to communicate with someone who has strongly held views that are different from your own. Rather than a one-sided message that only argues your point of view, a two sided message also finds merit in the other side’s position. Two sided messages say: “I think you might have some legitimate reasons to believe what you do and I respect you.” Then, when I tell you my views, you’ll be more likely to respect me. It’s reciprocity. When I acknowledge your side, that opens you up to listening to my message. This is a useful tool for combatting disinformation, which is fueled by polarization.

• Richard Petty

“Listening is a reciprocal process. Even if we disagree, if you listen to me well, it’s highly likely that I will listen well to you, and vice versa. If we create this positive reciprocity, it’s a major step to finding common ground… [In my research] I consistently found that when speakers are being listened to, their attitudes become more complex. They acknowledge that there is another aspect. This is the core: If we want to reduce polarization, we need people to acknowledge the complexity.” 

• Guy Itzchakov

Trust, and long lasting healthy relationships are built on respect and reciprocity. Listening and showing that you value others views helps foster this. If a one-sided, black-and-white message is sent out, a one-sided black-and-white message is likely to be sent back, but if you listen and show that you care about another’s views, they are more likely to listen to you and take you seriously. This is the difference between dialogue and domination.

• Peter Kim

Successful communication requires understanding the personal stories we tell ourselves and that others tell themselves. Curiosity is the key. The art of dialogue is staying in the tension of holding onto your own belief system while being profoundly open to the other. 

• Beth Fisher-Yoshida

To have productive conversations with people you disagree with, you first have to build a relationship and trust. This involves multiple steps, starting with comfort/safety, then connection, comprehension, and compassion, then credibility, and potential change. These steps can be used when speaking in public forums as well.

• Karin Tamerius