Disguised Disinformation: A Communication Style

In the world of misinformation, deceivers have found their own style, especially since the Corona crisis. They paint the picture of a seemingly serious scientific work with a broad brush, but with colors of deception and untruth. Instead of doing real research, they build a labyrinth of supposed evidence designed to look like real studies.

Links, links and more links: the weapons of disinformation

In contrast to real science journalists, who strive to present complex issues in an understandable and entertaining way, the deceptors use a completely different register. They publish posts that are full of links to “evidence”. There's a clever strategy behind this: they act as if they've done thorough research, giving their claims a certain degree of credibility.

A flood of words: The illusion of thoroughness and seriousness

The disinformation masters are not just gifted collectors of links. They are also adept at writing long and complicated texts that at first glance seem very serious and credible. They rely on the strategy of “more is more”, assuming that a long text with many “facts” and explanations must necessarily appear serious and trustworthy.

But be careful: this is just another deception tactic. Often these explanations are cobbled together information, half-truths, or even outright fabrications that only serve to support their claims. It's like a cheap imitation: from a distance it looks real, but upon closer inspection the cracks and inconsistencies become apparent.

This is another challenge for real experts: They not only have to debunk the false information, but also dismantle the seemingly extensive “evidence” of the deceivers. And that can be time-consuming and tedious. It shows how far disinformation actors will go to achieve their goals and highlights the need to strengthen and rethink science communication.

The tactic of confusion: truth hidden in the crowd

With the flood of text and references, the disinformation masters are trying to silence critics. If an expert comes to the conclusion that it is false information, his statement suddenly seems puny compared to the flood of information from the deceivers. Even if you reveal that populist media are used as sources, the counterargument quickly comes with “But there is a link to a public broadcaster.”

Experts in conflict: The fight against the flood

The deceivers pose a challenge to experts: They ask them to respond with a flood of sources, links and studies. Experts now have to put in enormous effort to prove their expertise. It becomes particularly tricky when you have to show that there is simply no reliable state of research on a topic. If the real experts can't provide the same amount of links, they suddenly seem less credible.

The fallacy: Science is more than a series of quotes

Many people, even those with college degrees, have a misunderstanding of what science really is. They believe that science is just a collection of quotations, and that the more quotations you have, the more “scientific” the work is.

The way forward: Rethinking science communication

To combat this deception, we need to rethink the way we communicate science. We need more real sources in the mass media. We need to encourage educators to make it clear that science is more than a collection of quotes. The government also needs to adapt its communication style and present sources more prominently.

Because one thing is clear: we must not allow the deceivers to appear in the eyes of the population as better informed than the real experts.

Strategies for dealing with deceivers: tools for users

It can be difficult for individuals to navigate the flood of disinformation. However, here are some tips that may help:

  1. Be skeptical : If you come across information that sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Be especially wary of posts that provoke an emotional response or represent a drastic change in current news coverage.
  2. Check the sources : Look at the links provided as evidence. Are they serious? Are they taken out of context? Note that reputable sources such as the Tagesschau can be placed next to less trustworthy sources to feign credibility.
  3. Look for expert opinions : Look for what recognized experts say on the topic. They often provide context and insight that can help identify misinformation.
  4. Use fact-checking sites : There are many websites dedicated to verifying information. Sites like ours can help separate the fact from the fiction.

Remember: an informed public is the best defense against disinformation. Stay alert, stay curious and don't be fooled by the tricks of deceivers.

Source and thanks for the input: Erik Flügge

also read


If you enjoyed this post and value the importance of well-founded information, become part of the exclusive Mimikama Club! Support our work and help us promote awareness and combat misinformation. As a club member you receive:

📬 Special Weekly Newsletter: Get exclusive content straight to your inbox.
🎥 Exclusive video* “Fact Checker Basic Course”: Learn from Andre Wolf how to recognize and combat misinformation.
📅 Early access to in-depth articles and fact checks: always be one step ahead.
📄 Bonus articles, just for you: Discover content you won't find anywhere else.
📝 Participation in webinars and workshops : Join us live or watch the recordings.
✔️ Quality exchange: Discuss safely in our comment function without trolls and bots.

Join us and become part of a community that stands for truth and clarity. Together we can make the world a little better!

* In this special course, Andre Wolf will teach you how to recognize and effectively combat misinformation. After completing the video, you have the opportunity to join our research team and actively participate in the education - an opportunity that is exclusively reserved for our club members!


Notes:
1) This content reflects the current state of affairs at the time of publication. The reproduction of individual images, screenshots, embeds or video sequences serves to discuss the topic. 2) Individual contributions were created through the use of machine assistance and were carefully checked by the Mimikama editorial team before publication. ( Reason )