The UK’s Government Office for Science really does seem to have this thing about the rise of misinformation (due to the so-called ‘infodemic’). Not long ago, they got together to discuss how it is supposed to be damaging the prospects for tackling climate change. Now they have commissioned the publication of a paper that claims to summarise everything we know about its wider implications and what we can do about it. The paper is heavily influenced by the works of Messrs Cook, Lewandowsky and van der Linden, to the extent that it amounts to little more than an academic panegyric, issued for the benefit of three egos that are already in full bloom and really don’t need any more watering.
Given the paper’s main expert influence, and how those experts emphasise the benefits of seeing everything through a behavioural scientist’s eyes, you can imagine that it has attracted quite some criticism. This is mainly because of its advocacy of Inoculation Theory and the use of ‘prebunking’ as the first line of defence when trying to deal with misinformation. I am tempted to add my own voice to these concerns but I think I have probably already made my thoughts clear enough regarding this most invidious of ideas. Besides which, when I started reading the paper I quickly came across a problem which I thought perhaps more worthy of my attention today – a problem that seems to be, if anything, more fundamental.
For me, the warning bells started to sound as early as the Executive Summary, in which one reads:
There are conceptual and policy challenges associated with how terms to describe false and misleading information are used and interpreted, but debates in the literature around these should not become a distraction from action to address harms.
Really? Are they actually saying it is more important to take action to address harms than it is to first establish how one may objectively define the basis for positing such harms? Are they really acknowledging a lack of agreed definition within the literature but then choosing to ignore the problem regardless?
Basically, the answer is yes, as becomes evident when reading section 4.1, ‘Definitions and Terminology’, in which it is stated:
Rather than providing detailed definitions of each term, this section focuses on the broader conceptual and policy challenges associated with how such terminology is used and interpreted. This reflects our consultation with experts, who emphasised that an excessive focus on definitional distinctions can detract from understanding how false and misleading information operates in practice, the impacts it has, and how it can be addressed at scale [My emphasis].
I am not at all surprised to find that the experts consulted were not that interested in pinning down definitions, considering how fluid and malleable the term ‘misinformation’ has become in their practical hands. In fact, a hint of this can be found in the paper’s own insistence in referring to ‘false and misleading information’ rather than ‘misinformation’. Gone are the days when misinformation was just false information, and hence something that was objectively verifiable. Now we can also have information that simply misleads, whatever that means.
The reality is that they can’t be comfortable with a firm definition of ‘misinformation’, because that would require a definitive basis for determining what is and is not misleading, as opposed to simply leading. And none of those who purport to be tackling an ‘infodemic’ (but are actually seeking to clamp down on stuff they don’t agree with) would want ‘misleading’ to be well-defined. Much better to just get on with the clamping and not worry too much about whether the right things are being clamped. No wonder the experts see the definition of one’s terms as an unnecessary distraction.
Troubled by this blasé attitude towards basic definitions, I searched amongst the cited papers to find a good example of misinformation that was not factually wrong but nevertheless misleading. A good example would at least reassure me that the experts know ‘misleading’ when they see it. This is what I found in a van der Linden paper:
A good example is the headline: “A ‘healthy’ doctor died two weeks after getting a COVID-19 vaccine; CDC is investigating why” (Benton, 2021). This article was published by a credible outlet, the Chicago Tribune, and technically it is not false.
So, as far as I can see, a headline draws attention to a correlation between two things and points out that the CDC has become involved to determine if there is a causal relationship. There’s nothing misleading about that. But this is what van der Linden goes on to say:
However, there was no evidence at the time that the doctor died because of the COVID-19 vaccine, yet the headline falsely implied causation where there was only correlation (van der Linden, 2022)
Huh?
Having got nowhere by consulting the experts, I turned to AI. I was then reliably informed that my work is considered factually correct but nevertheless misleading for three reasons (always three reasons; that’s AI for you):
- It undermines confidence in the institutions and pathologizes the consensus.
- It reframes climate mitigation policies as dangerous.
- It contributes to the ‘discourse of delay’, particularly by emphasizing risk and uncertainties.
Remember, misleading information is deemed by the Government Office for Science to be misinformation even when factually correct. Hence, it is something to be clamped down upon. The implication is that if you raise issues that would legitimately require one to lose confidence in an institution, then you will still be clamped. If one challenges a consensus, one must prepare for more clamping. One cannot draw attention to risks and uncertainties within the solution domain without being clamped. And one cannot advocate a sensibly robust approach to the management of transition risk without being accused of engaging in a ‘discourse of delay’, followed by more joys of the clamp. Such clamping is supposed to be a legitimate response to misinformation but I put it to you that branding my concerns in this way represents an abuse of language designed to protect a specific policy (in this case Net Zero) from democratic accountability and sceptical scrutiny.
I can’t be doing with such a highly politicized and tendentious approach to what should be an exercise in objectivity. This is an institutional abuse of terminology that casually flicks my concerns into the category of ‘misinformation’ or ‘delayism’. The only historically and logically legitimate definition of misinformation is the dissemination of verifiably false data, fabricated evidence, or objectively disproven factual claims. The rest is politicking and should not be given the thin scientific varnish that the likes of Cook, Lewandowsky and van der Linden seek to apply. The Government Office for Science and its supporting experts should either define their basic terms without equivocation, or make way for those who are prepared to do so. It’s bad enough that they should advocate for prebunking, but it is simply unforgivable that they also inadequately define their terminology, quite knowingly, in order to enable an entirely subjective basis for deciding what needs to be prebunked.
Climate Scepticism 
Thank you, John, for a very clear exposition with regard to an important and troubling development.
As a lawyer, the lack of a definition of misinformation within the report strikes me as an appalling lacuna that renders the whole exercise a waste of time. I also wonder why the job was framed out almost wholesale to the University of Sheffield. Then I wonder some more – how much taxpayer-funded largesse did the University of Sheffield receive from the government in return for producing a report which conveniently does what the government no doubt wanted it to do.
As for van der Linden and factually accurate but misleading headlines, he could do worse than spending some time trawling the websites of the BBC and the Guardian.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
Sander van der Linden et al are standing up for ‘truth and democracy’ — they have said so themselves. They have no time for those who see a definitional peril to be sorted out first. I covered this here:
Tackling the Monster Called Scepticism – Climate Scepticism
LikeLike
A paper about a subject, where the subject of the paper is not defined, is an absurdity. It’s not worth the paper it’s written on, IMO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
“A paper about a subject, where the subject of the paper is not defined, is an absurdity. It’s not worth the paper it’s written on”
I couldn’t agree more but, unfortunately, it’s by not having a firm definition for ‘misinformation’ that van der Linden et al have the flexibility to classify your statement as misinforming — and they do!
These people have become completely detached from the basic requirements for objective research, and yet the worrying thing is that when the Government says they are following the science, they mean they are following these individuals.
LikeLike
And I assume the government pays them for their “research”. It’s not a bad life if you’re on the inside track.
LikeLike
Further to misinformation, this time as promulgated by the state, here’s my draft submission to the government’s “Watch this space” consultation. I’ve kept it short and simple without any hyperlinks which would probably be removed anyway:
Watch this Space: a new strategic direction for UK media – green paper and public consultation, From: Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 23 June 2026
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/watch-this-space-a-new-strategic-direction-for-uk-media-green-paper-and-public-consultation
This consultation is totally misguided because in my opinion the legacy media such as BBC, ITV and Sky News are totally corrupt and need to be reformed and regulated much more strictly and definitely not foist “Big Brother” style onto public social media platforms.
I only ever watch/listen to the likes of BBC, ITV and Sky to keep abreast of how awful they are at propagating obvious lies, dis/mis/mal-information instead of the honest truth.
I’m not going to waste my time filling in all sections of the complicated consultation template. I’ll limit my submission to the following selection of bullet points on the obvious untrustworthiness of the legacy media:
Biased reporting and political stance on Brexit, for example with the BBC’s “Ten Years After” series featuring only one pro-Brexit contributor versus 19 with negative views on Brexit.
Biased reporting and political stance on Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
Biased reporting and political stance on the uncontrolled mass immigration of cultural aliens
Biased reporting and political stance on President Trump, a constant open display of Trump Derangement Syndrome. No wonder he is suing the BBC for their deliberate J6 distortions.
Biased reporting and political stance on the climate change hoax and so-called climate crisis. Censorship includes the coordinated suppression of all news on the Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption which resulted in the huge 2023-24 spike in global temperature which was then dishonestly blamed on man-made CO2 global warming and a natural El Nino event.
Biased reporting and political stance on the Covid scandemic, handily being now being exposed by the Fauci diary revelations. Censorship includes the coordinated suppression of all news on Dr Reiner Fuellmich and his Covid-19 Crimes Against Humanity grand jury model trial.
Biased reporting and political stance on 9/11. The BBC reporters were clearly working to a pre-composed script (conspiracy theory!) but unfortunately for them they reported the collapse of building WTC7 23 minutes too soon, as exposed by the live pictures.
LikeLike
What becomes of the “discourse of delay” pejorative when the Labour government itself cracks on Net Zero, and accepts that delay is necessary? The already heavily-trailed reduction in the ZEV mandate targets seems to be on the way, as reported at the BBC. It is cultish behaviour to try to silence any voices saying “slow down.”
I cannot abide the word “pre-bunk” (is there a hyphen?). The same goes for “infodemic.” Do the originators of these monstrosities realise how they are abusing etymology? By all rights, an “infodemic” should be a good thing. As to “pre-bunk,” I don’t know whence comes “bunk,” but surely what they are doing here is as old as the hills, dressed up in modern garb. It simply aims to stifle thought by locking in place (often wrong) answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
I share your etymological pain. Bunk is a noun (nonsense) and not a verb. Debunking is the removal of nonsense, so prebunking would presumably be the prior installation of nonsense. However, as you point out, murdering the English language is the least of the sins here — it is the application of the dark arts of propaganda going back to the beginning of time.
LikeLike
Harping on about my “specialist subject”(!) this is the Met Office web page concerning the Central England Temperature Series.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/cet-series
More than half the article is actually under the sub heading “The climate misinformation you may encounter ” Guilty conscience or get your excuse in first?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ray,
That Met Office webpage also links to this:
https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/tackling-climate-misinformation
It’s interesting that among the “misinformation” statements or questions the Met Office purports to debunk, there isn’t one along the lines of “high temperature records announced by the Met Office keep on being set at junk weather stations of WMO 3, 4 or 5 status.” I suspect they don’t have an answer to that.
LikeLike
Mark, as you say at 10:08am, ” It’s not a bad life if you’re on the inside track.”
Is this not simply our old friend The Iron Triangle in action?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle_%28US_politics%29
Or in engineering terms, this sounds very like positive feedback leading to extreme amplification of the signal until the system is saturated thereby resulting (as all teenage would-be rockstars know) in a horrible, loud screech from the amplifier … which is wonderful for drowning out other voices, especially those poor, misinformed souls who have the temerity to be ‘off message’.
In short, we seem to have, as in so many government-promoted programmes of recent decades, an attempt to allow one and only one narrative the oxygen of publicity. Two cheers for democracy, anybody? Or is that too many cheers?
Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
BBC link:
“Millions sent wildfire emergency phone alert warning against ‘any activity that could start a fire'”
Anybody else get this? I am presently swearing, but will not type here what I am saying about our government.
As copied from my phone. Leaving aside the appalling English (a disposable barbecue is a noun, not a verb), my question is: (insert your own effing and blinding)
JUST HOW STUPID DO THEY THINK WE ARE?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jit,
In answer to your question: Very stupid indeed.
My wife and I were sat watching television when both our phones went off simultaneously. I thought ‘my God, this must be it.’ When I saw what it was about, I very nearly threw the phone at the wall. What have we come to?
LikeLike
At the very moment when universities seem to be facing a serious financial crisis, am I surprised at this (page 8 of the 136 page report):
More research equates to more funding, I assume.
Remembering the lessons I learned from my law tutors (take no-one’s word for it, check the original sources yourself) I followed the link and have skim-read the report. I was somewhat discombobulated to see the section 4.1 (p14 et seq) headed “Definitions and terminology” really does contain the quote given in John’s article, and really does avoid offering a definition! I note that the proof-readers haven’t done a great job either. It says “An overview of the main terms used in research, policy, and public debate is provided in Table 1.1.” and then sets them out in Table 4.1.
In fairness, the Table does provide some short-form “definitions”, without much attempt to analyse all this, for instance:
They could have a field day analysing the Guardian’s output!
But never mind all that – see p18:
And much more in similar vein. The establsihment’s obsession with preserving the climate change/net zero narrative is evident at p39 (the top issue for the authors, it seems):
I’m afraid that by the time I was half-way through my eyes had glazed over as a result of the constant repetition. If you want to know more, you’ll have to read it for yourself – if you can struggle through it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
My phone didn’t go off. Have I managed to block the messaging? Given my level of IT skills, if I have done so, it was probably an accident!
LikeLike
Mark,
Importantly, this distraction is not always accidental. Definitional ambiguity is sometimes deliberately exploited to undermine the field.
Given that it is they who exploit definitional ambiguity in order to make their field achieve their particular aims, that statement has to go down in history as possibly the most ironic statement ever made. They just don’t seem to understand that definitional ambiguity is fatal to a discipline. My article is not exploiting it to undermine their field, it is merely pointing it out and expressing astonishment that these people think it is perfectly okay and seem to believe that people who don’t think it is okay are guilty of a ‘morally questionable decision’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for another dive into the “so-called infodemic” with the usual suspects, plus some other “experts” mentioned in the paper –
“Acknowledgements: We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following experts, whose insights through the expert consultation process helped to shape and refine this work: Dr Madalina Botan, Dr John Cook, Paula Gori, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, Clare Melford, Chris Morris, Stephan Mündges, Pallavi Sethi, Colin Strong, Professor Sander van der Linden, and Bob Ward. Names are listed in alphabetical order and do not indicate the level or nature of contribution.”
Bold mine, Bob Ward !!!
Had to look up the definition of “charlatan” – “a person who pretends to have skills or knowledge that they do not have, especially in medicine“
LikeLike
Dfhunter,
I’ve only had one occasion to look at Bob Ward’s work and I was left far from impressed:
https://cliscep.com/2023/10/05/let-no-lying-dog-sleep/
His was a piece of work which I suggested at the time showed him to have a “parlous disregard for important detail”. I am not reassured to see that he is listed amongst the supporting experts. Nor am I reassured to see that one of his Grantham Research Institute colleagues, Pallavi Sethi, is also listed. Her name appears at the top of a list of signatories of an open letter, which, amongst other things, stated:
https://caad.info/analysis/open-letter/climate-disinformation-is-already-harming-europeans-policymakers-should-protect-us/
But of even greater concern is the presence of Clare Melford. It is she who co-founded the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), an organisation with such a blatant left-wing bias in its adjudication of who can be expected to mislead, that the US Congress felt compelled to pass a law in 2023 that banned the Pentagon from funding it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Disinformation_Index
So, the paper may have been influenced by a group of experts but what comes across very clearly is that these experts form a monoculture that has a very partisan view of what is and is not false or misleading.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bang on cue – perfect timing, in fact:
“Row breaks out after BMJ retracts paper on vaccine deaths
Editors accused of damaging scientific integrity and setting ‘terrible’ precedent”
https://archive.ph/vCl3X#selection-2135.4-2139.85
LikeLiked by 2 people
“The Week in Energy — 15 August 2026The week the state found three new places to put the price of its energy policy — and none of them is a cut.”
https://richardlyon.substack.com/p/the-week-in-energy-15-august-2026
Richard Lyon’s weekly summaries should not be missed. I’ve put this one here for this reason (though please read the whole thing):
For years the argument about Britain’s energy policy has been an argument about a number: what it costs. This week the government gave its answer. It didn’t cut the cost; it rearranged where the cost appears. In seven days it published a scheme to route industrial relief around the household bill, a discount that spreads the price of new pylons across every bill in the country, and carbon limits that forbid the adequacy fleet to do the thing it is paid to do. A minister supplied the summary. The cost, she says, is ‘misinformation’. [my bold].
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some Orwell excerpts seem to fit in here:
The Ministry of Truth, Winston’s place of work, contained, it was said, three thousand rooms above ground level, and corresponding ramifications below.
The Ministry of Truth concerned itself with Lies. Party ownership of the print media made it easy to manipulate public opinion, and the film and radio carried the process further.
The primary job of the Ministry of Truth was to supply the citizens of Oceania with newspapers, films, textbooks, telescreen programmes, plays, novels – with every conceivable kind of information, instruction, or entertainment, from a statue to a slogan, from a lyric poem to a biological treatise, and from a child’s spelling-book to a Newspeak dictionary.
Winston worked in the RECORDS DEPARTMENT (a single branch of the Ministry of Truth) editing and writing for The Times. He dictated into a machine called a speakwrite. Winston would receive articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to alter, or, in Newspeak, rectify. If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston’s job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs – to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance.
When his day’s work started, Winston pulled the speakwrite towards him, blew the dust from its mouthpiece, and put on his spectacles. He dialed ‘back numbers’ on the telescreen and called for the appropriate issues of The Times, which slid out of the pneumatic tube after only a few minutes’ delay. The messages he had received referred to articles or news-items which for one reason or another it was thought necessary to rectify.
As soon as Winston had dealt with each of the messages, he clipped his speakwritten corrections to the appropriate copy of The Times and pushed them into the pneumatic tube. Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconsicious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.
And somewhere or other, quite anonymous, there were the directing brains who co-ordinated the whole effort and laid down the lines of policy which made it necessary that this fragment of the past should be preserved, that one falsified, and the other rubbed out of existence.
Plus two Soviet jokes–
A Soviet history professor addressed his university students: “Regarding the final exam, I have good news and bad news. The good news: All the questions are the same as last year. The bad news: Some of the answers are different.”
“Lubyanka (KGB headquarters) is the tallest building in Moscow. You can see Siberia from its basement.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mark,
Yes, that just about sums it up. I couldn’t hope to have been provided with a better example of what my article is about. As for ‘disproportionately focused‘, give me a break!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been thinking about my glib statement that “the rest is politicking”. What I should have pointed out is that the rest includes a whole raft of possible logical errors that can be made when attempting to analyse evidence. These can result in misrepresentations that can be objectively demonstrated. Nevertheless, it is also the area in which value judgments operate, and it is for that reason that I referred to politicking. I suspect this is the reason why some experts point to how difficult it can be to define misinformation. For example, taking evidence out of context can be misleading, but who gets to say which is the more important context? And when drawing conclusions based upon incomplete evidence, who gets to say which of all the possible conclusions that are not disallowed by the evidence is the one that misleads? The reality is a lot messier than is acknowledged by some of the fact checkers, and that is why it ill-behoves the experts to gloss over these concerns and dismiss them as an “excessive focus on definitions and terminology”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
As regular readers will know, I am no Reform UK supporter (far from it), but I can’t help but be bemused by the reference to misinformation in this Guardian hit-piece:
“Reform’s Tice accused of misinformation after urging people to enjoy heatwaves
Backlash from nurses, medical experts and green campaigners in response to deputy leader dismissing efforts to reach net zero”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/aug/17/reform-uk-richard-tice-stop-tackling-climate-crisis-enjoy-heat
He may have said more than that, so I suppose he may have been guilty of misinformation at some point, but nothing in those paragraphs can reasonably be so described. Then the Guardian counters with this:
Where in the above quote from Tice did he do what Simon Williams accuses him of? Who is spreading misinformation here? As an aside, I was in Staffordshire last week and we took the grandchildren to a play park in the woods, so there was a bit of shelter, though the ambient temperature was 33.5C. It was packed, and everyone seemd to be having a great time, and it was pleasing to see that many people were sensibly carrying (and drinking) a lot of water.
The week before that, I took my 93 year old mother to visit a National Trust property. It was during a slightly cooler period, but the temperature was still in the low 20sC. My mother complained of being cold. I suggest (at the risk of being accused of misinformation) that many old people have much greater problems with cold than they do with all but the most extreme heat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rapidly following on from that Guardian hit piece on Tice’s comments, we have this:
“Extreme heat more dangerous for people 60 and over than previously thought
Study finds older adults could face harmful heat stress at just 1.5C of warming above preindustrial levels”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/aug/17/extreme-heat-more-dangerous-for-people-60-and-over-than-previously-thought
The article provides no link to the study, which always makes me suspicious. It also contains this:
Many criticisms have been made of the claims about excess deaths this summer, and linking them to heatwaves. The claims are certainly open for debate. When the Guardian states a precise number of excess deaths, and does so in terms that suggest it’s a simple fact, even though the numbers claimed are based on modelling, is that misinformation?
As regards misinformation, and how one defines it (or chooses not to define it), does selective reporting constitute misinformation? For instance, if rising temperatures save more lives that would have been lost to extreme cold than are lost to extreme heat caused by the same rising temperatures, should that not be mentioned in order to avoid giving a misleading impression? Misinformation is definitely in the eye of the beholder.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark,
I’m afraid that is what you get when you choose not to “focus on definitional distinctions” and instead focus on how “false and misleading information operates in practice, the impacts it has, and how it can be addressed at scale.” The result is that one no longer determines misinformation based upon an epistemological technicality but on whether or not the impact is considered desirable. In this instance, it is considered desirable to concentrate upon heat-related deaths and ignore cold-related mortality. Therefore, it is not deemed to be misleading, even though it is giving a false impression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is an example of government disinformation from almost 2 years ago that my researches today led me back to. It comes in a report by Turver whose subtitle is, “Yawning gap between Government projections for renewables prices and reality”.
In his conclusions Turver writes, “It is clear the Government peddled dangerous disinformation in its Generation Costs report from 2023. It must know the prices it projected are wrong because it also sets the strike prices for the CfD auction rounds. But Labour and others use this report to substantiate their claim that renewables are getting cheaper. In reality, the opposite is the case; renewables were never cheap and they are now getting much more expensive. More expensive than Government projections and more expensive than gas-fired electricity.” https://davidturver.substack.com/p/crocodile-jaws-will-crush-net-zero
It seems that a government department will not tell the truth when it has been captured by lobbyists; as Dieter Helm has recently written, “As was to be expected, the proposal … was met with howls of protest from the renewables lobbyists and from the government department, which by then was thoroughly captured by these interests. The trouble with bowing to the lobbyists is that the problem does not go away: if intermittent generators do not pay the costs, there will be too much electricity and often in the wrong place. Pretending otherwise does not reduce the system costs, which can now be so clearly seen in the fact of the very high prices that have resulted.” https://dieterhelm.co.uk/energy-climate/the-cost-of-energy-and-what-to-do-about-it/
The government has been led astray and it in turn has led the public (and its purse!) astray. Rotten government seems to be everywhere – or am I too pessimistic? Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Further to my comment about government disinformation (just above), is not the problem even wider? For example, the Turver report that I referenced is readily available on the web and so any part of the MSM could have easily reported the blatant discrepancy in renewables costs. And yet they did not, and so the disinformation has been allowed to stand, essentially unchallenged in the public mind, for about 2 years. How useless are the British MSM for ordinary people and their interests?
And where, with the change in governing party following the general election of July 2024, has the Labour Party been; has it been looking after the interests of ordinary people as it was originally created to do? I do not feel so, not by a long chalk.
The rot goes deep and wide, or so it seems to me. Regards, John C.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John C,
When dealing with information, one is typically dealing with disputed, incomplete, or out-of-context information that is not demonstrably false. So, by extending the definition of ‘misinformation’ to cover such circumstances, one creates a situation in which nearly every opinion, statement, viewpoint, and piece of reporting can be labelled as misinformation. The labelling then comes down to which opinions, statements and reporting meet a criterion of acceptability, usually based upon the notion of the avoidance of harm. Ultimately, it isn’t about avoiding misinformation, it’s about establishing the ‘right’ misinformation:
https://cliscep.com/2025/07/31/establishing-the-right-misinformation/
The MSM reporting of the cost of renewables definitely falls into this category since there are certain opinions, viewpoints, statements and reporting that are deemed to be harmful.
LikeLiked by 2 people