What do hospitals, Starbucks, McDonald's and the Red Cross have in common? In recent years, they have all had to deal with misinformation: incorrect reporting that is misleading. “The consequences for these organisations can be enormous,” says Yvette Linders, Assistant Professor of Modern Languages and Cultures at Radboud University. She is involved in the research on effectively dealing with misinformation on behalf of Peitho, Radboud’s knowledge centre for rhetoric. “When you think of misinformation, you might first think of misinformation about events in the news, but organisations are also increasingly facing it. This can lead to reputational damage, boycotts and a decline in trust and revenue. Without clear guidelines on how an organisation can best deal with misinformation, it is difficult to create policies around it. Through our research, we want to help organisations with this.”
Dealing with misinformation: this research helps organisations get started
More and more organisations are having to face it: the dissemination of inaccurate and/or misleading information that could damage their reputations. But how can they deal with it adequately? Radboud University, Tilburg University and Utrecht University have joined forces to research this. “As an organisation, it is difficult to refute misleading information about yourself because, in the eyes of the outside world, you are never neutral.”
Difficult trade-offs
Linders knows that misinformation affects different types of organisations. She points to hospitals, which were falsely accused of not being full during the coronavirus pandemic due to misinterpreted images of empty beds (which had just been cleaned). And to the Red Cross, whose director was falsely accused of pocketing a million-dollar salary. Commercial organisations have also faced misinformation. This includes the widely shared but incorrect reports that McDonald's chicken nuggets contained chicken head parts and that coffee giant Starbucks handed out free frappuccinos to undocumented migrants on 'Dreamer Day', which drew widespread criticism, especially from the conservative right. Linders: “Misinformation around societal events is still somewhat refutable by neutral fact checkers. But as an organisation, it is more difficult to refute misleading information about yourself because, in the eyes of the outside world, you are never neutral.”
As more and more companies are facing misinformation, in the summer of 2024, the three universities involved in this joint research project received a grant from the Dutch foundation for scientific research on commercial communications (SWOCC). “A lot of organisations need a plan for dealing with misinformation,” Linders explains. “The question is whether, how, when and on which platforms they should respond if they are victims of misinformation. And if they do respond, when should they do it and when shouldn’t they? Should they ignore petty gossip to avoid making a mountain out of a molehill? Or is responding as early as possible necessary to limit the growth of misinformation? These are all difficult trade-offs that we would like to help organisations with through our research.”
Effective combinations
The research project has several components. Linders: “We are doing an extensive literature review, in which we are mainly focusing on fact-checking and effectively correcting misinformation. In addition, we are conducting interviews with communications officers from organisations that have faced misinformation, to get a better picture of the practical side. Finally, we are running an experiment, in which we are presenting people with different types of misinformation alongside different forms of rebuttal, to see which rebuttal is most beneficial for an organisation's image.”
Linders can already share some insights. “If the spread of misinformation remains limited, you can ignore it as an organisation. But once the spread of misinformation gets broader and broader – and thus gets shared through accounts with a wider reach – the need for a response does arise. In that case, do not respond to every social media post. Instead, publish a clear statement on your own site and link to it consistently. When responding to misinformation, your options include denial, an extended rebuttal, a statement about your organisational values or a combination of all three. Through our research, we wish to discover which combinations are effective.”
Although social media and artificial intelligence (AI) make it seem like misinformation is part and parcel of the current era, Linders explains that it also used to occur in the past. “Misinformation about food safety has been around for a long time. In recent years, we have seen misinformation on the rise about ‘washing’ in particular. This is when misleading information is shared suggesting that organisations are less sustainable or inclusive than they claim to be, for instance. Misinformation can arise in two ways: first, to deliberately harm an organisation. People are looking for a scapegoat in that case. But misinformation can also arise when topics are too complex for people to understand: they then search for answers themselves and take what they find as the truth. And through social media, people now have huge platforms to share their own truths. Through our research, we aim to produce a flowchart for organisations to see how they can respond effectively to misinformation on a case-by-case basis. This is important for organisations because all forms of misinformation get in the way of them achieving their original goals.”
Foto: Roman Kraft via Unsplash
Contact information
- Organizational unit
- Faculty of Arts, Peitho
- Theme
- Media & Communication