Why We’re Moving Beyond ‘Misinformation’ and ‘Disinformation’

 In today’s fractured information ecosystem, one person’s “misinformation” or “disinformation” is another’s truth. And in that ambiguity, bad actors win.

The words misinformation and disinformation once served a purpose. They gave name to a crisis that many had not yet recognized: an onslaught of falsehoods flooding the digital ecosystem, often with malign intent. These terms helped distinguish between honest mistakes (misinformation) and intentional, agenda-driven lies (disinformation), and helped define a complex information landscape. But as the landscape and political climate have changed so has the language. These words have now been politicized beyond recognition and turned into partisan weapons by actors on the right and the left, and among anti-democratic foreign actors.

For years, Russian state media has labeled credible reports in Western media that it dislikes as “disinformation,” and recently launched its own so-called fact-checking operations to legitimize that framing. On the left, Democratic-aligned groups like Tara McGowan’s Courier Newsroom have cloaked hyper partisan content in the language of “fighting misinformation.” U.S. President Donald Trump has invoked the phrase “massive disinformation campaign” to dismiss allegations of Russian election interference. Simply put, language that once clarified is now obscuring.

At NewsGuard, we’re retiring these words as primary labels. Not because the threats they describe have vanished. To the contrary, the threats have increased. But rather because the words no longer help us explain these threats.

We now face an information environment that is more complex, more coordinated, and more technologically sophisticated. AI-generated content, deepfakes, secretly partisan news sites posing as independent local news outlets, and foreign state-linked influence campaigns are reshaping how falsehoods spread. But the language we’ve used to describe those threats hasn’t kept up. It’s vague, overused, and increasingly seen as partisan. When everything is “disinformation,” nothing is, and public trust continues to disintegrate.

It’s no longer enough to call something fake — because those on all sides of the political divide use the term so avidly and casually. Instead, we are turning to language that’s more precise, harder to hijack, and more specific. We will describe what a piece of content actually does, such as whether it fabricates facts, distorts real events, or impersonates legitimate sources. We’ll explain whether a claim is explicitly false, AI-generated, unsubstantiated, or manipulated.

A simple phrase like “false claim” is more powerful and precise than “misinformation” and “disinformation,” because it names the problem plainly and directs attention to the content itself — without triggering partisan reflexes or rhetorical spin. Entries in NewsGuard’s False Claim Fingerprints (formerly Misinformation Fingerprints) database have always met the test of being “provably false” to qualify as claims we catalog and debunk in this ever-growing datastream. “False” is a higher and more accountable bar than “misinformation.”

Language should clarify, not obfuscate. “Misinformation” and “disinformation” have lost their precision. So, we are now employing terms, such as provably false claims, that accurately describe the content in question, rather than signal which side you’re on.

McKenzie Sadeghi is the AI and Foreign Influence Editor at NewsGuard.

We launched Reality Check after seeing how much interest there is in our work beyond the business and tech communities that we serve. Subscribe to this newsletter to support our apolitical mission to counter misinformation for readers, brands, and democracies. Have feedback? Send us an email: realitycheck@newsguardtech.com.

Share NewsGuard’s Reality Check