Why say " misinformation" and "disinformation" instead of "errors" and "lies"
Executive summary
The distinction between “misinformation” (false or inaccurate information shared without clear intent) and “disinformation” (false information created and spread deliberately) matters because scholars and practitioners use the terms to describe different causes, actors, harms, and countermeasures — including automated AI tools, coordinated campaigns, and everyday sharing behavior [1] [2]. Reporting and policy bodies warn that mis- and disinformation are systemic risks that shape elections, public health and climate debate, and require different responses than simply labeling content “errors” or “lies” [3] [4].
1. Why language matters: precision for diagnosis and response
Specialized terms let researchers and policymakers separate accidental falsehoods from orchestrated campaigns. Sources define misinformation as inaccuracies circulated without malicious intent and disinformation as deliberate, organized deception — a distinction used by cybersecurity and election experts to design different countermeasures (education, moderation, detection) versus law enforcement or attribution efforts [2] [1]. The Reuters Institute and other watchdogs treat the problem as a structural risk — not isolated “errors” — because platforms, incentives and actors amplify harm [5] [4].
2. Different actors, different incentives: why calling something a “lie” can miss the mechanism
Calling a post an “error” or a user a “liar” flattens important differences. Many false items spread because of algorithmic incentives, sloppy sourcing, or monetization models — problems addressed by platform policy and media literacy — while coordinated disinformation campaigns exploit propaganda techniques and state or organizational resources and require detection, attribution and sometimes legal or diplomatic responses [1] [6]. Brookings and other analysts show organized efforts — with financial and political incentives — that go beyond isolated lies and create durable narrative effects [3].
3. Intent matters for accountability and intervention
Intent is central to the vocabulary: misinformation signals a need for correction and public education, disinformation signals a need for counter‑propaganda, attribution, or platform action against networks. The ADL and cybersecurity experts emphasize tracking tactics and actors that intentionally weaponize false narratives — a response different in kind from simple fact‑checking aimed at accidental falsehoods [7] [2]. Project 2025 coverage also illustrates how political projects can seek to protect or enable deliberate falsehoods, so labels map to policy stakes [8].
4. Aesthetics and professionalization complicate the “error vs. lie” frame
Recent studies show bad actors borrow scientific aesthetics — charts, designs and academic styles — to make false claims look credible; that tactic blurs the public’s ability to tell an “error” from an organized deception and makes the precise language (misinformation/disinformation) useful for diagnosing technique as well as content [9]. The spread of AI‑generated sites and automated content turned falsehood into an industrial problem, not merely individual dishonesty [10].
5. Risk framing: why institutions elevate the terms
Global institutions and researchers frame mis- and disinformation as systemic risks — the World Economic Forum, Reuters Institute reporting, and academic reviews treat them as threats to elections, public health and social stability — which pushes conversation beyond moral judgement (“lies”) to public‑policy responses [4] [5]. That framing drives calls for technology, regulation and civic education rather than only shaming individuals [6] [11].
6. Critics and caveats: when labels can be weaponized
Labels themselves can become political tools. Some actors seek to delegitimize efforts to counter falsehoods by rebranding them as censorship or by attacking institutions that study misinformation (lawsuits and policy proposals aiming to curb research and moderation are documented), showing that terminology is contested terrain and not neutral [8] [10]. The Brennan Center and Bulletin reporting indicate an explicit political conflict over who gets to define and respond to “misinformation” and “disinformation” [8] [10].
7. Practical takeaway for communicators and citizens
Use the terms deliberately: call out “misinformation” when falsehoods stem from mistakes, sloppy sourcing or viral sharing and prioritize correction and media literacy; call out “disinformation” when evidence suggests coordination, intent, or profiteering and prioritize investigation, network disruption and platform policies. Sources recommend a mix of technological detection, platform action, and public education — not just moralizing language — to reduce harm [6] [1].
Limitations: available sources document definitions, tactics and policy debates around mis- and disinformation but do not present a single universal taxonomy or legal definition; different groups still disagree on thresholds and remedies [6] [2].