Two significant reports have come out in recent weeks about the growing and related problems of declining trust and increasing misinformation and disinformation–the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer and the Aspen Institute Commission on Information Disorder.
I have blogged previously about the related topics of civility and polarization and the efforts of the public relations industry to address these societal problems.
The annual Edelman Trust Barometer is titled this year ‘The Cycle of Distrust.” The broad global survey notes not only a decline in trust of government and media, but that these two institutions fuel the mistrust by a failure of leadership and effort to address problems of their own making. Business is the most trusted institution at 61%, followed by NGOs at 59%. Only 52% of respondents trust government with the media the least trusted at 50%.
Meanwhile, the Aspen Institute report addresses the related problem of misinformation (uncareful sharing of inaccurate information) and disinformation (intentional deception). The report gives a list of recommendations across three categories:
To increase transparency:
- invest in public interest research
- force social media platforms to disclose information about content sources, reach and impressions
- require social media platforms to disclose their content moderation practices and policies
- disclose information about digital ads and paid posts
To build trust:
- expose origins of power imbalances and promote community solutions to social bonds
- Develop and scale communication tools, networks, and platforms that are designed to bridge divides, build empathy, and strengthen trust among communities
- promote diversity at tech platform companies
- invest in local journalism
- promote accountability standards that have consequences for those who willfully violate public trust
- improve election security and voter confidence
Reduce harms:
- a coordinated federal approach to countering disinformation
- create an independent organization for engage in research, education and other misinformation countermeasures
- develop platform features to raise user awareness of and resilience to misinformation
- develop clear policies and penalties to swiftly hold misinformation “supferspreaders” accountable and prevent bad actors
Finally, the commission recommended revisions to Section 230 of the 1996 Communication Decency Act. Specifically they call for withdrawal of platform immunity for content that is promoted through paid advertising and post promotion, and the removal of immunity as it relates to the implementation of product features, recommendation engines, and design.
Some of the above strike me as sound ideas. But I also worry about the interpretation and implementation of some of them. For example, who and by what metric will “misinformation” be determined? And, will an already divisive public respond well to content hewing to uniform opinion as determined by elites?
All of this reminds me of the book “How to Lose the Information War,’ in which Nina Jankowicz makes the case that there has been “Russian collusion” or meddling in Eastern Europe long before it became the obsession in the United States in 2016. She would concur with the Edelman report that the media are complicit in exacerbating our divisions in the US. She says any antidote to misinformation, such as those proposed by Aspen, need to be bipartisan. I agree.
I would also say public relations professionals can contribute to rebuilding trust both in institutions and in truthful information in how they do their jobs. I advise three things to keep in mind in this regard:
- separate opinion from fact. Facts should be truthful, opinions should be identified as such and all opinion allowed.
- remember the public is best served with more, not less, information. Be mindful that our communication exists among a plurality of voices, in what has been called a “marketplace of ideas. ” PR professionals have an ethical imperative to enable informed decision making. Resist the temptation to advance or be the one dominant view. Remember, E Pluribus Unum, out of many one, is a national value.
- Focus on mutual understanding, not ultimate persuasion. It is ok to win some to your side but unanimity of thought is unrealistic practically and dangerous societally.
In the end, being too quick to label an alternative opinion ‘misinformation’ only makes the problem worse. It is better to calmly state you disagree and then explain why.
