The easy access to information on the internet opens the doors not just to knowledge, but also to misleading information, now often referred to as “misinformation.” Distinguishing between accurate, fact-based information and inaccurate misinformation has become more and more difficult, especially in the midst of a worldwide pandemic when people were primarily able to access updates and other critical health information through virtual sources. It has become more important than ever to discern reliable information in all our sources of information.
According to the American Psychology Association, misinformation refers to information that is simply incorrect or mistaken. Disinformation, however, is intentionally wrong information that is spread deliberately to mislead readers. Both are dangerous forms of inaccuracy that can lead to a large-scale game of “Telephone” with scarier consequences.
A recent example of the health-related effects of misinformation is the rise in disinfectant and bleach poisonings reported to the CDC in 2020 after former President Trump’s comments that disinfectant injections could help protect from and cure COVID-19, despite there being no evidence to support such a statement (and common sense indicating such “treatments” would be dangerous). Now more than ever, it is critical for us to have the tools necessary to fact-check health-related information you come across to prevent the spread of misinformation and stay news-healthy, as well as physically healthy.
According to Dr. Sharath Guntuku, a computer science researcher and assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania currently working on a study to examine social media consumption patterns in different populations, specifically related to content about COVID-19, many people will share information just based on a “catchy” or “click-bait-y” title of a link, without “spending enough time to check or double-check” these sources or even what they say. He noted this trend as a potential tool for spreading misinformation unintentionally, especially as “social media usage overall has increased” since the emergence of COVID-19.
Guntuku recommended that people rely more on their doctors and medical professionals for information about health-related topics, because they “spent a lot of time actually preparing for answering these sorts of questions.” Asking such questions can signal to medical professionals that “these are the kinds of things that my [clinicians’] patients are thinking about; these are potential concerns that I [clinicians] should potentially address proactively.”
Shortly after the development of the first COVID-19 vaccines, anti-vaccine activists tried to falsely connect the vaccination efforts with the infamous Tuskegee syphilis in an attempt to discourage Black communities from receiving critical, life-saving vaccinations. As we noted in a previous AmNews fact-check, such misinformation can have dire health consequences and create disparities in rates of infection. Lower rates of vaccination among Black communities contribute to the disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infection in those communities, illustrating the danger of sharing conspiracy theories.
Dr. Cynthia Vinney, a media psychology and mental health expert, emphasized the importance of readers understanding the ways in which they’re consuming media and information. Whether it be by Facebook, X, the local news channel, or any other source of information, she said readers should remember that “they’re not neutral,” meaning that many of the sources we get information from might have their own goals in mind. “That doesn’t mean that you enjoy it less or have less fun with it or anything. . .; it just means that you can spot those little moments of manipulation,” she added.
Vinney recommended that readers use her mentor Dr. Karen Dill-Shackleford’s four-pronged approach to examine any source of your choosing. This approach encourages readers to look at four elements of every media message: cognitive, emotional, esthetic, and moral. When reading, listening, or watching something, review it with these four elements by asking questions related to each topic, such as:
- Cognitive — What is the source endorsing? Does it make sense for them to be endorsing it this way?
- Emotional — How do I feel when reading this? How do the creators want me to feel?
- Esthetic — How is this source being presented? What might the presentation mean for the information it is conveying?
- Moral — Are the creators sending a moral lesson through the article or media? Are they making one option sound better than another?
Another media literacy expert, Dr. Cyndy Scheibe, co-founder of Project Look Sharp, a nonprofit organization that works to educate children and parents about the importance of media literacy, highlighted how important it is for us to practice critical thinking when reviewing online sources. Even when receiving information from sources we trust and have used for a long time, it’s important to evaluate the information they provide and “ask those hard questions” before taking it at face value.
Similar to Vinney’s point that this evaluation doesn’t automatically mean we can’t enjoy our usual media sources, Scheibe says this is not a “moral issue.” We don’t have to label certain sources as wholly good or bad; sources should be evaluated every time we use them to ensure we’re always getting the most accurate and up-to-date information.
With the way technology continues to develop through Artificial Intelligence, machine-learning, and more, it will always be important to evaluate our sources of information before believing what we read automatically. When it comes to our health, it is especially important to think critically about the information we consume to protect ourselves and those we love. From your leisurely Instagram scroll to your regular morning news consumption, remember to think before believing what you read and before sharing it.