2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)

“In the mind of the public, disinformation is a series of endlessly creative and unpredictable attacks by unknown actors. In reality, much of what flies around is pretty predictable.”

Here’s something that’s likely to be one of the more specific predictions on Nieman Lab this year.

Sometime in the first few months of 2021, a social media user will share a picture of a newly released Moderna vaccine information packet distributed with the doses of the vaccine. The user will be shocked (shocked!) that it says the vaccine has not been evaluated for adverse effects on fertility. Which is weird, they’ll say — why wouldn’t they want to test that? Could this have to do with the whole syncytin-1 thing? What are they hiding? Is this evidence of a cover-up of history’s largest sterilization event — Exhibit A, right in the pamphlet?

This technique — which has been used so regularly by anti-vaccination activists that it has its own name, “argument by package insert” — will take people hours to debunk definitively. As shares click into the thousands, some fact-checker will write it up, patiently explaining that the timelines and ethical restrictions around most new drug trials end up producing little fertility data; the language in the pamphlet is boilerplate, not unique to this drug; and package insert language is regulatory disclosure, not a review of all research.

And when the original claim is, in fact, debunked, for the gazillionth time, the platforms will add a simple note to the posts sharing it. The note won’t say that this is a variation on a piece of disinfo older than Britney Spears’ “Toxic,” that it has always been used deceptively, and has been repeatedly found without merit, year after year, month after month, day after day.

It will say the claim is “disputed” and link to a specific fact-check. Then we’ll move onto something else — something equally predictable and equally specific.

Maybe it’ll be someone misframing documents about tracking doses as RFID-nanobot tracking in the vaccine itself. Or claims about disturbing vaccine outcomes in Britain that don’t account for recipient age. Or crisis actors, videos of people being “rounded up,” timeworn misrepresentations of VAERS or VAERS-like data. The sort of claims that a lot of people in the vaccine and political misinformation space could probably predict accurately, today, at any level of granularity desired. They’ll be seen as new claims, generate new debunks, and spark new debates about labeling or removal. And we’ll do it over and over again, as if each claim was a special snowflake.

In the mind of the public, disinformation is a series of endlessly creative and unpredictable attacks by unknown actors. In reality, much of what flies around is pretty predictable. It’s the same narratives, the same stories, the same techniques. It’s the same people spreading it, rotating in a limited number of new celebrities and plot twists each season. We likely already know most of the claims coming in the impending flood of Covid-19 vaccination misinfo. We know why those claims are wrong, or at least have historically turned out wrong. We know this because they’re likely to be the same claims on new hangers, ready-to-hand and minimally fitted to new events.

Yet too often, each claim is treated as a one-off — as if the history of the claim, tactic, or those spreading it can’t be taken into account. Platforms and web users are asked to make judgments, but they’re asked to do so in ways that often discard the most important information, at least early on: Does the person making or amplifying the claim have a history of making false statements? Is there a long history of similar claims being used to deceive? Students are encouraged to evaluate claims “on their own terms.” Platforms don’t provide historical or tactical context on likely deceptive claims while they’re being checked more deeply, even if they’re small variations on false claims seen a million times before.

We just keep plodding through the process.

I don’t claim to know what the exact remedies are here. But aside from the more narrow predictions in the introduction, I’d like to think that this is the year we all — from educators to platforms to users — make better use of the predictability of online misinformation and those who amplify it. More pre-bunking of the claims we know are coming, more indicators that various actors have a history of deception or error. More recognition that a claim that is a variation on repeated lies cannot be accorded the same initial epistemic status as claims that are truly novel. An education that focuses less on deep analysis of novel claims, and more on quickly finding the history and status of known claims and the reputation of those making them.

Recognizing that much misinformation is neither surprising nor novel may be demoralizing in a sense, but it might light the way to a more proactive approach. And maybe, just maybe, that will make the future less depressingly predictable.

Mike Caulfield runs the Digital Polarization Initiative at the American Democracy Project.

Here’s something that’s likely to be one of the more specific predictions on Nieman Lab this year.

Sometime in the first few months of 2021, a social media user will share a picture of a newly released Moderna vaccine information packet distributed with the doses of the vaccine. The user will be shocked (shocked!) that it says the vaccine has not been evaluated for adverse effects on fertility. Which is weird, they’ll say — why wouldn’t they want to test that? Could this have to do with the whole syncytin-1 thing? What are they hiding? Is this evidence of a cover-up of history’s largest sterilization event — Exhibit A, right in the pamphlet?

This technique — which has been used so regularly by anti-vaccination activists that it has its own name, “argument by package insert” — will take people hours to debunk definitively. As shares click into the thousands, some fact-checker will write it up, patiently explaining that the timelines and ethical restrictions around most new drug trials end up producing little fertility data; the language in the pamphlet is boilerplate, not unique to this drug; and package insert language is regulatory disclosure, not a review of all research.

And when the original claim is, in fact, debunked, for the gazillionth time, the platforms will add a simple note to the posts sharing it. The note won’t say that this is a variation on a piece of disinfo older than Britney Spears’ “Toxic,” that it has always been used deceptively, and has been repeatedly found without merit, year after year, month after month, day after day.

It will say the claim is “disputed” and link to a specific fact-check. Then we’ll move onto something else — something equally predictable and equally specific.

Maybe it’ll be someone misframing documents about tracking doses as RFID-nanobot tracking in the vaccine itself. Or claims about disturbing vaccine outcomes in Britain that don’t account for recipient age. Or crisis actors, videos of people being “rounded up,” timeworn misrepresentations of VAERS or VAERS-like data. The sort of claims that a lot of people in the vaccine and political misinformation space could probably predict accurately, today, at any level of granularity desired. They’ll be seen as new claims, generate new debunks, and spark new debates about labeling or removal. And we’ll do it over and over again, as if each claim was a special snowflake.

In the mind of the public, disinformation is a series of endlessly creative and unpredictable attacks by unknown actors. In reality, much of what flies around is pretty predictable. It’s the same narratives, the same stories, the same techniques. It’s the same people spreading it, rotating in a limited number of new celebrities and plot twists each season. We likely already know most of the claims coming in the impending flood of Covid-19 vaccination misinfo. We know why those claims are wrong, or at least have historically turned out wrong. We know this because they’re likely to be the same claims on new hangers, ready-to-hand and minimally fitted to new events.

Yet too often, each claim is treated as a one-off — as if the history of the claim, tactic, or those spreading it can’t be taken into account. Platforms and web users are asked to make judgments, but they’re asked to do so in ways that often discard the most important information, at least early on: Does the person making or amplifying the claim have a history of making false statements? Is there a long history of similar claims being used to deceive? Students are encouraged to evaluate claims “on their own terms.” Platforms don’t provide historical or tactical context on likely deceptive claims while they’re being checked more deeply, even if they’re small variations on false claims seen a million times before.

We just keep plodding through the process.

I don’t claim to know what the exact remedies are here. But aside from the more narrow predictions in the introduction, I’d like to think that this is the year we all — from educators to platforms to users — make better use of the predictability of online misinformation and those who amplify it. More pre-bunking of the claims we know are coming, more indicators that various actors have a history of deception or error. More recognition that a claim that is a variation on repeated lies cannot be accorded the same initial epistemic status as claims that are truly novel. An education that focuses less on deep analysis of novel claims, and more on quickly finding the history and status of known claims and the reputation of those making them.

Recognizing that much misinformation is neither surprising nor novel may be demoralizing in a sense, but it might light the way to a more proactive approach. And maybe, just maybe, that will make the future less depressingly predictable.

Mike Caulfield runs the Digital Polarization Initiative at the American Democracy Project.

Ariel Zirulnick   Local newsrooms question their paywalls

Kawandeep Virdee   Goodbye, doomscroll

Ben Collins   We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists

Nicholas Jackson   Blogging is back, but better

Ben Werdmuller   The web blooms again

Danielle C. Belton   A decimated media rededicates itself to truth

Catalina Albeanu   Publish less, listen more

Rachel Schallom   The rise of nonprofit journalism continues

Tim Carmody   Spotify will make big waves in video

John Ketchum   More journalists of color become newsroom founders

Sarah Marshall   The year audiences need extra cheer

Nonny de la Pena   News reaches the third dimension

Ray Soto   The news gets spatial

Mark S. Luckie   Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy

Charo Henríquez   A new path to leadership

Burt Herman   Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities

Jim Friedlich   A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder

Candis Callison   Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)

Jacqué Palmer   The rise of the plain-text email newsletter

Robert Hernandez   Data and shame

Anna Nirmala   Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots

David Skok   A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation

Meredith D. Clark   The year journalism starts paying reparations

Marie Shanahan   Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo

Errin Haines   Let’s normalize women’s leadership

Aaron Foley   Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   Stop pretending publishers are a united front

Joanne McNeil   Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism

Rachel Glickhouse   Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves

Heidi Tworek   A year of news mocktails

Masuma Ahuja   We’ll remember how interconnected our world is

Whitney Phillips   Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods

Parker Molloy   The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump

Zainab Khan   From understanding to feeling

Chicas Poderosas   More voices mean better information

Juleyka Lantigua   The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned

Cindy Royal   J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability

Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui   Millennials are ready to run things

Gabe Schneider   Another year of empty promises on diversity

Doris Truong   Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage

Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman   Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation

Francesco Zaffarano   The year we ask the audience what it needs

Sonali Prasad   Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise

Marissa Evans   Putting community trauma into context

Mariano Blejman   It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism

Nico Gendron   Ask your readers to help build your products

Janet Haven and Sam Hinds   Is this an AI newsroom?

Brian Moritz   The year sports journalism changes for good

Andrew Donohue   The rise of the democracy beat

Bo Hee Kim   Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture

Jessica Clark   News becomes plural

Mark Stenberg   The rise of the journalist-influencer

Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula   Expect to see more translations and non-English content

Cory Bergman   The year after a thousand earthquakes

Sue Cross   A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save

C.W. Anderson   Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?

Chase Davis   The year we look beyond The Story

Marcus Mabry   News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)

Moreno Cruz Osório   In Brazil, a push for pluralism

Don Day   Business first, journalism second

Sara M. Watson   Return of the RSS reader

A.J. Bauer   The year of MAGAcal thinking

Sam Ford   We’ll find better ways to archive our work

Benjamin Toff   Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse

Cory Haik   Be essential

Hadjar Benmiloud   Get representative, or die trying

Christoph Mergerson   Black Americans will demand more from journalism

Beena Raghavendran   Journalism gets fused with art

Garance Franke-Ruta   Rebundling content, rebuilding connections

John Davidow   Reflect and repent

Astead W. Herndon   The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again

Brandy Zadrozny   Misinformation fatigue sets in

Mike Ananny   Toward better tech journalism

Gordon Crovitz   Common law will finally apply to the Internet

Annie Rudd   Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”

Tshepo Tshabalala   Go niche

Patrick Butler   Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration

Michael W. Wagner   Fractured democracy, fractured journalism

Celeste Headlee   The rise of radical newsroom transparency

Pablo Boczkowski   Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?

Rick Berke   Virtual events are here to stay

Kate Myers   My son will join every Zoom call in our industry

An Xiao Mina   2020 isn’t a black swan — it’s a yellow canary

Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund   The virus ups data journalism’s game

Natalie Meade   Journalism enters rehab

Jeremy Gilbert   Human-centered journalism

Francesca Tripodi   Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes

Pia Frey   Building growth through tastemakers and their communities

Anthony Nadler   Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy

Sarah Stonbely   Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity

José Zamora   Walking the talk on diversity

Tamar Charney   Public radio has a midlife crisis

Joni Deutsch   Local arts and music make journalism more joyous

Sumi Aggarwal   News literacy programs aren’t child’s play

Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes   A shift from conversation to action

Imaeyen Ibanga   Journalism gets unmasked

David Chavern   Local video finally gets momentum

Ariane Bernard   Going solo is still only a path for the few

Renée Kaplan   Falling in love with your subscription

Samantha Ragland   The year of journalists taking initiative

Zizi Papacharissi   The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth

Julia Angwin   Show your (computational) work

Matt Skibinski   Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it

Nabiha Syed   Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships

Jennifer Brandel   A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation

Colleen Shalby   The definition of good journalism shifts

Ryan Kellett   The bundle gets bundled

Andrew Ramsammy   Stop being polite and start getting real

Ashton Lattimore   Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry

John Saroff   Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites

Laura E. Davis   The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change

Gonzalo del Peon   Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side

Tonya Mosley   True equity means ownership

Ernie Smith   Entrepreneurship on rails

Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli   Defund the crime beat

Raney Aronson-Rath   To get past information divides, we need to understand them first

Kristen Muller   Engaged journalism scales

Ståle Grut   Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox

Alyssa Zeisler   Holistic medicine for journalism

Linda Solomon Wood   Canada steps up for journalism

Delia Cai   Subscriptions start working for the middle

Richard Tofel   Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)

Rodney Gibbs   Zooming beyond talking heads

Cherian George   Enter the lamb warriors

Amara Aguilar   Journalism schools emphasize listening

Mandy Jenkins   You build trust by helping your readers

Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin   Media reparations now

María Sánchez Díez   Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok

Steve Henn   Has independent podcasting peaked?

Hossein Derakhshan   Mass personalization of truth

Talmon Joseph Smith   The media rejects deficit hawkery

Victor Pickard   The commercial era for local journalism is over

Logan Jaffe   History as a reporting tool

Jonas Kaiser   Toward a wehrhafte journalism

Nikki Usher   Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media

Rishad Patel   From direct-to-consumer to direct-to-believers

Jesse Holcomb   Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism

Jennifer Choi   What have we done for you lately?

Tanya Cordrey   Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values

Mike Caulfield   2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)

Jer Thorp   Fewer pixels, more cardboard

M. Scott Havens   Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption

Jody Brannon   People won’t renew

Joshua P. Darr   Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis

Kerri Hoffman   Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem

Basile Simon   Graphics, unite

John Garrett   A surprisingly good year

Edward Roussel   Tech companies get aggressive in local

Nisha Chittal   The year we stop pivoting

Taylor Lorenz   Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy

Bill Adair   The future of fact-checking is all about structured data

Kevin D. Grant   Parachute journalism goes away for good

Loretta Chao   Open up the profession

J. Siguru Wahutu   Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different

Megan McCarthy   Readers embrace a low-information diet

Matt DeRienzo   Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality