Combating Disinformation: Strategies and an Invitation for Your Team to Practice

 
 

By Thomas Andrew Bryer, PhD

Disinformation is defined as existing at the intersection of two dimensions: accuracy and intent of the creator. Information that is inaccurate and spread by an individual with self-interested intent (e.g. to promote a specific policy or value) is disinformation. Information that is vague or ambiguous (i.e., accuracy cannot be determined) and spread by an individual with self-interested intent is disingenuous information. Information that is technically accurate but lacking a complete context and spread with bad intent is distracting information. Each of these destabilize the policy process and threaten to fracture communities.

Comparatively, misinformation is inaccurate but spread by an individual with good intent (i.e., they think they are helping the community by “warning” about risks or dangers). Misguided information is vague or ambiguous and spread with good intent. These both also threaten the policy process and community cohesion but require different solutions and strategies of the relationally intelligent leader. Information that is accurate and spread by someone with good intent often is missing information in that it is drowned out by the various manifestations online and offline of disinformation and misinformation. Local government leaders must amplify the missing information, block the spread of misinformation and misguided information, and inclusively communicate truth in response to all forms of disinformation.

My colleague, who is an elected member of the Titusville, Florida city council, and I created a checklist to combat disinformation (pictured). Above all and across checklist items, local government leaders first must recognize that they and their colleagues are not alone. Combating disinformation is a community affair; protecting those are susceptible to disinformation is of community-wide importance. Local leaders have allies across governments, nonprofit organizations, the business community, faith community, and neighborhood associations.

The first step, tapping the online and offline networks of allies, is to identify the target of the disinformation. What groups in the community are most likely to be swayed by the disinformation, disingenuous information, and distracting information? What groups have concerned about the topic and are likely to act, through emotion or belief, to spread rumor and gossip with the intent of doing good—protecting kids, preserving cultural heritage, maintaining community aesthetics, et cetera?

Second, local leaders need to react appropriately: not to overreact, not to offer a knee-jerk fact check without understanding the context and emotional appeal of dis- and misinformation, and not to cower in the corner hoping that the issue will simply disappear so that the daily business of government and continue in all its rational and predictable beauty.

Third, local leaders in cooperation with allies, should mount a public participation process that targets the specific issues that have emerged and started to divide the community. No two issues will be the same. Unlike prescribed public participation processes for changes to land use or zoning, public participation processes designed to combat disinformation and/or help a community heal after disinformation rips through the community fabric, requires a context-specific, bottom-up design. Force fitting resident education and community healing into standard town hall or council committee settings are more likely to exacerbate frayed relationships when what is needed is space for dialogue across those with competing views and interpretations of reality.

Fourth, local leaders with allies need to help a community recover and disinformation leaves visible scars. This can often mean that a series of one-off community conversations, meetings, or hearings should be repeated to allow residents who grew distrustful to regularly engage each other, to build empathy, and to develop capacity for disagreement without demonization.

Finally, local leaders should have a rapid response plan. Disinformation and misinformation can and often does spread without warning, in the same way as a mass shooting or natural disaster can strike with little or no notice or forewarning that it is going to happen or what the consequences of it will be. Having and practicing implementation of a plan before an event strike allows communities to face the challenge and emerge stronger on the other side.

Dr. Stoeckel and I created a set of interactive scenarios for local leaders to practice their responses to dis- and misinformation. They are written as a set of “choose your own adventure” activities. We invite you to use the tool and practice these scenarios with your team. Practicing can help your team identify where you have existing policies for response, where you might have gaps in policy, and where your core team members might disagree on an appropriate response. These are free to use. Access them here.

Next
Next

FASTER: Building Economic Resilience in Small and Minority-Owned Businesses