Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are common origins and motivations behind COVID-19 misinformation and denial?
Executive summary
COVID-19 misinformation and denial have multiple, overlapping origins: social media platforms are repeatedly identified as the main distribution channel, while political actors, broadcast outlets, and pre-existing mistrust in institutions drive content and uptake [1] [2] [3]. Researchers who sampled misinformation found varied motives — uncertainty, political advantage, commercial gain, and pre-existing conspiratorial or ideological beliefs — all amplified by an “infodemic” that makes reliable guidance harder to find [4] [5].
1. Social media as the magnifier: platforms, algorithms and reach
Social media is cited across reviews and systematic studies as the primary amplifier of COVID-19 falsehoods; academic reviews and scans of vaccine misinformation list social platforms as the main source for misleading content, because they enable rapid replication and niche targeting [1] [6]. The Reuters Institute’s fact‑checking analysis of 225 pieces early in the pandemic highlights how online networks spread diverse claims globally, turning local errors into international narratives [4].
2. Political actors and elite cues: when leaders shape the infodemic
Survey and investigative reporting show political figures can be major drivers of public perceptions about COVID-19: American respondents pointed to Donald Trump and mainstream media as rival sources of misinformation depending on partisan identity, and other U.S. officials and outlets have been documented promoting competing COVID narratives [2] [7]. The Reuters Institute and other outlets note that when elites give contradictory or politicized signals, uncertainty grows and misinformation fills the void [4] [2].
3. Psychological and social motivations: uncertainty, identity and conspiracy
Psychological analyses describe an “infodemic” where overabundance and conflicting information produce anxiety and motivate people to seek simple, certain explanations; that environment increases receptivity to conspiratorial and identity‑reinforcing stories [5]. Encyclopedia and other summaries show WHO flagged early on that too much conflicting information made it harder for people to find trustworthy guidance — a fertile condition for denial and fake remedies [5].
4. Commercial incentives, attention economies and non‑evidence treatments
Commercial motives also matter: producers of unproven therapies, sensational headlines, and content designed for clicks can profit from misinformation. Medical reporting connects uptake of non‑evidence treatments (ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine) to media exposure and misinformation endorsement; those behaviors correlate with distrust in institutions and conspiratorial thinking rather than solely party ID [8]. This links monetary and attention incentives to real health harms.
5. Traditional media and broadcast ecosystems: mixed roles
Traditional outlets are not uniformly corrective. Analyses and compilations indicate that television and radio—including particular broadcasters—have sometimes downplayed the pandemic or amplified skeptical frames, which studies link to measurable differences in infection and mortality in exposed audiences [3]. At the same time, many newsrooms and fact‑checking groups have worked to counter false narratives, showing contested roles for legacy media [9] [4].
6. Structural causes: trust deficits and information literacy gaps
Systematic reviews emphasize structural drivers — low institutional trust and weak media/scientific literacy — that make populations vulnerable to misinformation [1] [10]. Experts recommend improving how people evaluate scientific claims and collaborating across newsrooms and fact‑checking networks to rebuild trust and surface authoritative guidance [10] [9].
7. Competing remedies and contested trade‑offs
Responses range from platform moderation and collaborative fact‑checking to education and “inoculation” strategies that teach people to spot manipulation; however, sources stress limits and trade‑offs, including free‑speech arguments and the need for coordinated, cross‑platform action [6] [9]. Reuters Institute materials suggest understanding the ecology of claims is essential before picking countermeasures [4].
8. What reporting does not show or leaves uncertain
Available sources do not give a single, settled breakdown of the proportion of misinformation caused by each motive (political, commercial, psychological), nor do they provide comprehensive global coverage across all regions — most reviewed studies focus on North American and European contexts [1] [11]. Detailed causal attribution at scale remains an open research challenge [4].
Contextual takeaway: the literature and reporting portray COVID‑19 misinformation as a multi‑headed problem — social platforms provide velocity and targeting, political and media elites can seed or legitimize falsehoods, and psychological and commercial incentives make people susceptible — meaning solutions must combine platform policies, better science education, journalistic collaboration, and trust‑building in institutions [1] [10] [9].