Covering disinformation without amplifying it
Finding a falsehood does not automatically make it newsworthy. A correction can introduce the claim to people who had never heard it. Assess the reach and possible harm first, then report the established facts in a form that limits further amplification.
The essentials
Distinguish misinformation, shared in good faith, from disinformation, produced deliberately to harm or gain an advantage. Correct mistakes clearly, but also investigate intentional deception: its authors, means and objectives may be a reporting subject in their own right. The motive cannot be established merely because a statement is false.
Assess the threshold for coverage. A rumour confined to a few groups can grow through a prominent debunk. Consider its spread and concrete risks, including health, violence or election participation. Monitoring without publication may be the appropriate response below that threshold; wider circulation or serious danger can justify reporting.
Use the truth sandwich: begin with the established fact, present the false claim once with clear attribution and context, then return to the fact. Do not leave the lie alone in a headline or opening. Describe hateful or dehumanising speech rather than reproducing the insult. Explain the mechanism without offering it a fresh platform.
Take it to the field
Before debunking, assess circulation and possible harm. Build the headline around the established fact, then check that the image, caption and social post do not put the falsehood back in the foreground.
Your turn
Choose three rumours circulating this week. For each, decide whether to monitor quietly or report. Justify the choice in two lines, considering public circulation and concrete harm rather than the mere existence of the claim.