How to fight misinformation and greenwashing

Mis- and disinformation exploits two key human behavioirs, says Cordelia Fine, the author of A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives, in The New York Times.

“We humans quickly develop an irrational loyalty to our beliefs, and work hard to find evidence that supports those opinions and to discredit, discount or avoid information that does not.”

That’s why this type of content spreads so fast, and it is hard, if not impossible, to contain them. Our role as journalists is to communicate the facts in accurate, accessible, and memorable ways so that people seeking for truth can find it.

We should help people who struggle to differentiate fact from fiction and want help figuring it out.  

“Communicating effectively about misinformation isn’t just about handing people the facts. The facts need to be shared in a way that people can receive. And that’s where good science journalism — and good editing — comes in.” 

KSJ Science Editing Handbook

To avoid contributing to misinformation:

• Highlight facts more than the myth.
• When correcting misinformation, provide an alternative explanation.
• ‘Inoculate’ people by warning them of the threat of being misled.
• Empathise with your audience. 
• Choose sources and voices who have credibility with your audience.
• Avoid a patronising tone or telling people what to do.
• Be wary of oversimplification.
• Explain what is not known.
• Write responsible headlines.

Indications of a bad source

When we are talking about science-related issues such as climate change, scientists, non-governmental organisations and public science institutions tend to be the best sources, but don’t lose your professional scepticism and critical faculties. 

According to the KSJ Science Editing Handbook, “It can be difficult to tell whether sources are truly knowledgeable in a particular area and, moreover, whether they might have an agenda or bias that shapes their opinions.”

One thing you can do as a reporter is to ask your source if there’s anyone they should steer clear of in their field. 

“It’s also a good idea to take a look at a source’s résumé or CV, which is often available via their institutional webpage.”

You can look for any source’s research awards or leadership positions in professional societies, and also how long the source has been working in the field, bearing in mind that a postdoc or new assistant professor may not have earned many professional accomplishments but still be a good source. You should also look at the papers the scientist has published to see with whom they have collaborated.

“It’s always a red flag if they tend to publish papers with just their name and one other name,” says New York Times science reporter Apoorva Mandavilli. In those cases, the sources may not be well regarded.

You should also research the journals in which a source has published or edited, and stay away from sources who publish in predatory journals, which are driven by financial self-interest rather than quality and scholarship. Look for reliable sources in the Directory of Open Access Journals. 

Red flags that might Indicate lack of expertise or a conflict of interest, according to the Handbook:

• The source’s opinion differs markedly from that of others in the field.
• The source rarely collaborates with other researchers.
• The source receives money from or has consulted for companies or advocacy organisations or has been with a speaker’s bureau.
• The source discloses potential conflicts of interest on research papers or conference abstracts.
• The source is developing or sells products.

All these checking steps are also applicable to nonprofit organisations, which can seem as independent or grassroots but may be funded by companies or industry bodies.

When talking about companies, pay attention to terms that can be misleading, such as eco-friendly, non-toxic, plant-based, plant-derived, pure, raw, healthy, organic (without certification), green, all-natural.

Many businesses and brands make their consumers or clients believe they offer sustainable products when they actually don’t, what is known as greenwashing.

In fact, 60% of sustainability claims made by big-name brands are greenwashing, says The Synthetics Anonymous report.

In order to spot greenwashing products, beware of aesthetically pleasing traps (terms and colours), look out for common greenwashing words, check for certifications, read review ratings, ask questions to the companies. 

Avoid false balance

It is a journalistic premise to hear both sides of a story, but you should never give space in your reporting for climate deniers.

Climate change is a fact, not an opinion.

False balance or false equivalency happens when reporters fall into the trap of framing opposing beliefs and perspectives as equally valid when, from a scientific or medical standpoint, they are not.

“When journalists cover the ongoing societal debate over human-caused climate change, and they quote scientists on ‘both sides of the issue,’ presenting them as equal in merit and in number, they fail to communicate to readers that there is, in fact, a clear scientific consensus on the issue”, says the KSJ Handbook.

To avoid false balance, you should always know where the scientific consensus lies and look for solid evidence of any scientifically outlier position. 

“Sometimes the difference between a good science piece and a bad science piece is one additional question asked at the end of an interview or five extra minutes of online research. If you’re not sure that the voices in a piece truly reflect the scientific consensus, keep digging until you are.”

KSJ Handbook

---