Skip to content

Terminology and conceptual frameworks

Terminology matters in research and journalism about misinformation and disinformation. The language we use to describe problematic information shapes assumptions about its origins, mechanisms, and effective interventions. Key terms—misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, information operations, gaslighting—have overlapping and sometimes contradictory definitions. Intent, perspective, and cultural context determine classification, yet these are often difficult to assess.

Central challenges

Overlapping definitions: Many terms describing problematic information do not have mutually exclusive definitions. Rather, their meanings blur and overlap, making precise classification difficult. Misinformation can become disinformation; propaganda can overlap with advertising; information operations can describe both state and non-state actors.

Intent ambiguity: Determining whether information spread is intentionally deceptive is difficult, especially in networked media contexts where content spreads through multiple channels and contexts. Deceptive actors can exploit this ambiguity to maintain deniability.

Perspective-dependence: Whether a campaign is labeled propaganda, public relations, or public diplomacy often depends on the observer's perspective. The same campaign can be framed as legitimate persuasion by one actor and condemned as manipulation by critics.

Cross-cultural complications: Borrowing terms from non-English languages and contexts risks reinforcing stereotypes or misleading audiences. For example, xuanchuan (宣传, "information spreading") in Chinese carries no inherent connotations of deception, whereas dezinformatsiya (Soviet-era disinformation) specifically indexes state actors, potentially overgeneralizing about Russian information practices.

Key concepts

Misinformation: Information whose inaccuracy is unintentional. Example: the Chicago Daily Tribune's 1948 mistaken report of Dewey's defeat of Truman. No deceptive intent, but harm still occurs.

Disinformation: Information that is deliberately false or misleading. Example: false reports of explosions at Columbian Chemicals spread via coordinated fake accounts. Deliberately orchestrated deception.

Propaganda: Systematic persuasion campaigns conducted through mass media. Can involve accurate information selectively presented, misleading framing, or mixing accurate and false claims. Classification as propaganda often depends on assessment of intent and perspective.

Advertising & public relations: Transparent persuasion campaigns with clear sources and commercial/institutional goals. Common and increasingly viewed as normal.

Public diplomacy/public affairs: State efforts to improve international reputation or public perception. Similar mechanisms to advertising and propaganda but often framed as legitimate.

Information operations: Military/intelligence term for strategic use of information to manipulate adversaries. Adopted by platforms (e.g., Facebook) to describe unidentified actors' coordinated campaigns, obscuring questions about intent and agency.

Gaslighting: Orchestrated deceptions designed to undermine a target's trust in their own judgment and perceptions.

Xuanchuan: Chinese term for spreading information broadly; carries no inherent connotations of deception but refers to information dissemination more generally.

Dezinformatsiya: Soviet-era concept of coordinated state disinformation; associated with "active measures" for systematic destabilization.

Satire, parody, culture jamming, hoax: Forms in which fabricated or exaggerated information is presented intentionally to critique, amuse, or convey cultural commentary. Intent to deceive may be absent or secondary.

Methodological implications

Imprecise or misapplied terminology can:

  • Obscure actual mechanisms of information spread (conflating organic viral sharing with coordinated amplification)
  • Make interventions less effective (media literacy doesn't address coordinated disinformation)
  • Create power imbalances (deceptive actors exploit ambiguity to deny intent)
  • Shape policy and moderation decisions based on perspective rather than phenomenon characteristics
  • Inadvertently reinforce stereotypes when cross-cultural terms are borrowed without adequate context

Key papers in this wiki

Open challenges

  • How can we develop precise, culturally-sensitive terminology that captures the complexity of problematic information across different contexts?
  • What are the consequences of using perspective-dependent labels (propaganda vs. public diplomacy) in academic and journalistic analysis?
  • How do we establish intent or intentionality in networked media contexts where content spreads through multiple channels and actors?
  • What terminology best captures hybrid phenomena (e.g., accurate information used manipulatively) without either obscuring intent or assuming intent incorrectly?