Since the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump in 2016, online mis- and disinformation has become a prominent societal issue. In response to widespread concern as to the influence on public opinion and behaviour (especially during elections), a new industry of professionals, researchers, and experts was quickly formed. Their work involves studying how falsehoods spread through different media, and has led to a suite of interventions to combat misinformation.
Dubbed “Big Disinfo” by New York Times journalist Joseph Bernstein, the industry has recently come under three kinds of criticism. First, describing something as “misinformation” or “disinformation” in the public debate is a form of politically motivated censorship; thereby restricting freedom of expression. Second, carrying out a “fact check” necessarily contradicts the beliefs held by some citizens, which might alienate them and create divisions in society. Third, the mere use of the technical terms “misinformation” or “disinformation” by public figures creates a greater distance between them and citizens; discouraging the latter’s participation in public debate.
Whilst studies repeatedly show heightened public concern about the effects of misinformation, much less is known about what citizens think about the fight against misinformation. How often is calling out something as disinformation perceived as an attempt to shut down debate? Are fact-checkers perceived as biased? How do people react when they hear politicians talk about misinformation?
To answer some of these questions, we conducted an online survey amongst a representative sample of the French adult population.[1] France makes for an interesting case study since it has one of the most developed industries for combating misinformation in Europe; with recognized fact-checking services (including Agence France Presse and Le Monde), renowned researchers (at SciencesPo, the Sorbonne, or the Paris School of Economics) and the only government agency in Europe dedicated to tracking foreign interference (Viginum).
A major criticism of attempts to identify and expose false information in public debate is that they restrict freedom of expression. In the United States, a Republican Congressman from Ohio, Jim Jordan, and the party-linked think tank America First Legal, have launched a campaign against disinformation researchers, accusing them of seeking to remove conservative ideas from public debate. Moreover, several American media outlets have launched legal action against the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), an organisation that classifies news sites according to their likelihood to spread falsehoods. The goal of the GDI is to help advertisers avoid placing their ads on untrustworthy sites, but critics argue that the GDI classifications risk censoring certain points of view that are controversial but not necessarily misinformation.
Our study shows that the French public are sensitive to this criticism: 55% of respondents agree with the statement that "the mainstream media often tend to describe points of view or information that differ from their own as disinformation", compared to 24% who disagree. Supporters of the far right Rassemblement National (72%), and the far left La France Insoumise (69%), are especially likely to agree. At the same time, a similar share of French people (55%) believe that "the term disinformation is often used to censor ideas or arguments that challenge the dominant current of thought". While 72% of those who position themselves on the far right of the political spectrum agree with this statement, support on the far left is not greater than average.
The second major criticism of the industry to counter misinformation concerns “fact-checking.” It is a practice that has become increasingly widespread in recent years, especially during election campaigns. However, the idea that there is an “absolute” truth in all things can be problematic, particularly in politics. Fact-checkers motivations have in particular been called into question. A good example is found in the recent US presidential debate. Donald Trump complained that he had been treated unfairly by the two moderators who also fact-checked the debate. He claimed that the debate was “rigged” and that it was “three against one” (his opponent Kamala Harris and the two moderators) because so many of his statements had been verified as false.
In France, our study suggests that citizens have a rather positive view of fact-checkers: 56% find them useful because they help citizens avoid believing false information. Young people aged 18 to 24 (65%) are more likely to agree with this statement, as are higher socio-professional categories (63%). In addition, the latest editions of the Verian – La Croix barometer on trust in the media show that half of French people (47%) said they had already read or consulted articles or broadcasts by fact-checkers, and 1 in 5 (22%) cite fact-checking as the main tool that should be developed in the fight against disinformation.
However, the place occupied by fact-checks in the public debate raises concerns. 43% of French people agree with the statement that “fact-checkers create divisions in society by suggesting that on certain subjects there is "one" truth when this is not the case" (compared to 27% who disagree). And 45% also believe that "fact-checkers are biased because they are often interested in certain types of information and ignore others" (compared to 24% who disagree). It should be noted that those who position themselves on the far right are slightly more likely to agree with these statements (54% and 55% respectively).
The third criticism that we consider in our study refers to the very use of the term "disinformation". The philosopher Dan Williams recently argued on his blog that citizens do not use the technical term "misinformation" in their daily conversations with their family and friends; and that the increased use of these terms by journalists, experts and elected officials creates an even greater distance between them and citizens.
Our survey shows that the vast majority of French people (78%) rarely or never use the term "disinformation" when discussing current events with friends or family. Whilst on average 22% of the population use the term regularly or very often, it is used more by those who identify as being on the far left (26%) or far right (28%) of the political spectrum. As well as 33% of those aged 18 to 34 compared to less than 20% of those over 35.
As for the use of the word in public debate, a majority of French people (62%) believe that “politicians should never talk about "disinformation" to challenge the arguments or ideas of their opponents". At the same time, 66% of French people agree with the statement that "the term disinformation is often used by politicians to challenge facts that they do not like". Quite widely used today in public debate in France, the term “disinformation” is clearly far from being perceived as a neutral attempt to call out an objective falsehood.
Numerous studies show that false information influences citizens' attitudes and behaviours, which undermines the democratic ideal of acting on accurate information. It therefore seems crucial to act to limit the spread of misinformation online and help individuals to better distinguish between truth and falsehood. The recent États généraux de l'information report, commissioned by Emmanuel Macron to explore the general state of information eco-system in France, provides several recommendations in this regard. But there are concerns and criticisms of the industry for combating misinformation that fundamentally oppose some of these actions. And the results of our survey show that a significant proportion of French people, particularly those at the political extremes, are sensitive to these criticisms.
There is then a considerable risk that efforts to combat disinformation could paradoxically discourage trust in accurate information. If citizens suspect that the “establishment” is imposing an official version of the truth via initiatives to combat disinformation, then they might turn to less trustworthy media sources. If it is believed that fact-checking is politically motivated, then it risks rejection of accurate information. The success of any efforts to help citizens better distinguish between accurate and inaccurate information appear to be related to their perceived motivations. And practitioners and policymakers should keep this insight in mind when deploying interventions to stem the flow of mis- and disinformation.
[1] Survey conducted online by Verian from 26th to 28th May 2024 with a sample of 994 respondents, representative of the French population aged 18 and over (representativeness ensured by the quota method applied to the respondent's gender, age, socio-professional category, region, and urban area category).