A coalition of publicly-funded fact-checking institutions, some boasting NATO affiliations, have embarked on a grand tour of American newsrooms to “inoculate” journalists against the disinformation of bad actors and foreign powers ahead of this year’s presidential elections, the Blind Spot can report.

In a sign of growing counter-disinformation sophistication among fact-checking bodies, reporters are being taught by bodies such as the Institute for Strategic Dialogue to be less crude and obtuse with their counter-messaging. That includes advice not to mock populations that are partial to believing false narratives and conspiracy theories, or even political candidates peddling alternative facts directly. Instead, the advice is to show empathy with impacted demographics and for reporters to “pick their battles” to not inadvertently add fuel to fringe falsehoods.

Counter-disinformation experts fear that being too direct risks alienating the vulnerable and sowing even greater distrust in mainstream narratives and sources. This is especially the case if fact-checking fails to counter a falsehood definitively or leaves enough ambiguity to empower further interpretation.

“Stick to the statements with clear numbers and quotes and benchmarks that are easier to prove,” one disinformation expert from a major think tank in the space told reporters gathered for the training. “This can be more effective than spending a lot of time on claims that are kind of hard to disprove,” they added, advising them “to be compassionate when talking to sources”.

Another recommended reporters “be particularly cautious when reporting information that elicits powerful emotions,” and to “consider who would benefit from making this specific community anxious or uncertain.”

The truth sandwich

When asked by reporters how to handle disinformation they are duty bound to report on, like that spread by political candidates, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr, specialists recommended deploying a tactic known as the “truth sandwich,” a psychological model designed to ensure reporters don’t inadvertently amplify or add credence to a false narrative through repetition without proper context.

“You never want to lead with what’s not true because we know that people’s attention span is short,” the counter-propagandists said, advising reporters to follow up by addressing the myth but then immediately correcting it again.

“You want to leave people with a lingering impression of the truth and then give evidence for the truth so that they believe you and then report the denominator to give a sense of scale.”

Reporters were also advised to abandon longstanding newsroom conventions such as emphasising the new, fringe or different in headlines and to opt instead for wording that helped to re-establish norms.

“I think it can be really tempting for journalists to highlight what’s really unusual about a situation and you know, there’s a time and place for that but often doing so can just remove context and heightened anxiety and you want to start a avoid doing that,” one of the four counter-propagandists said. “It’s important to especially in headlines, frame norms.”

Pre-bunking

Finally, emphasis was given to the idea of pre-bunking false narratives before they even become established, all the more important in the age of artificial intelligence, deep fakes and robo audio. Examples of good practice included articles explaining what is common practice in a criminal conviction case ahead of major trials, how indictments work and why election results are rarely decided on the night of a vote.

Getting ahead of the story was seen as an important element of inoculating readers’ minds against potential disinformation to come.

“Once people start believing something, it’s kind of hard to get them to unbelieve it. So this is this is really important,” those specialising in such inoculation techniques explained to the reporters.

“Pre-bunking is probably the most proactive thing that journalists can do to fight disinformation. It’s sort of a method of inoculating people against misinformation before the narratives start to spread. So for big civic events like elections, this can be really useful,” another said.

On top of that, reporters were advised to reach out to trusted community leaders and experts directly to preemptively figure out what disinformation pitfalls specific networks might be vulnerable to. In another departure from conventional journalistic practice, reporters were also advised to encourage such trusted figures to amplify their own messaging to communities.

“Get ahead of the misinformation, talk to the people in this community to see what narratives are spreading what they’re wondering about what they’re curious about and what they don’t know,” the specialists said.

“People in the community can be a vessel for this information that people trust, like religious leaders, educators, librarians, people like that.”

Counter propaganda risk

Journalists were warned that engaging in counter-disinformation work would likely come with its own risks. Don’t expect to have your information well received, they were told.

“Researching and reporting on disinformation carries risks, including online abuse to journalists, threats and accusations of censorship or suppression of free speech, including from powerful individuals and institutions,” they said.

Among those who see such counter-disinformation efforts as potentially curtailing American free speech values and as propaganda in their own right include tech billionaires Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey.