With the recent measles outbreaks, the U.S. is experiencing the devastating impact of "alternative facts," which will only worsen under RFK Jr's MAHA campaign. But there are ways to successfully debunk misinformation.
This article was made possible because of the generous support of DAME members. We urgently need your help to keep publishing. Will you contribute just $5 a month to support our journalism?
A few weeks ago, a friend posted the first photos of her newborn daughter on social media. Amid the oohs and aahs (and the inevitable posting of different connections’ birth horror stories), one of comments, from the new mother’s aunt, jumped out at me.
“What a gorgeous little girl! Keep her that way — don’t vaccinate!”
Almost immediately, a back-and-forth about the safety of vaccines erupted across the comments below. In the past, I would have immediately jumped into the fray, guns blazing — calling out and then correcting any misinformation to highlight the dangers of missed or delayed immunizations, as seen in this year’s measles and pertussis outbreaks in the United States. But before I let my fingertips hit the keyboard, I took a beat. Thanks to a journalism workshop I attended a few weeks prior at the Healthcare Journalism 2025 conference in Los Angeles, I realized that combating misinformation and debunking “alternative facts” requires a more sensitive approach, something more than confrontation.
Each year, the Association of Healthcare Journalists holds a conference to “enhance the quality, accuracy, and visibility of health reporting.” With the understanding that Trump 2.0, as well as “the tyranny of the algorithm” online, is changing how news is spread and consumed, Naseem Miller, senior health editor at The Journalist’s Resource, gathered seasoned journalists and those who study misinformation to discuss how to best counter false health claims, especially when trying to reach audiences who may find themselves at odds with traditional news sources. As I took in the breadth of their experience, research, and wisdom, I realized their advice mattered — not just for journalists trying to inform the general public, but for those of us who are trying to engage friends and family who now find themselves believing information provided in rather questionable information ecosystems.
Speak their language. There’s been no lack of commentary on “misinformation” and “disinformation” over the past few years. Yet, when you describe someone’s opinion as either one, it often results in shutting the door on further communication. Karen Ernst — director of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led advocacy organization that provides accurate information about vaccines for families — said they’ve stopped using the term “misinformation” altogether to improve engagement.
“People who fall prey to misinformation don’t think it’s misinformation,” she said. “[Voices for Vaccines] call them vaccine rumors.”
Each week, Voices for Vaccines addresses some of these rumors, taking the time to explain the science in plain, accessible language so readers can understand why such a rumor exists — and the reality behind the rumor.
Taking such an approach, Ernst argued, not only directly addresses vaccine misinformation but has the power to potentially “inoculate” readers from future falsehoods they may encounter.
That plain, simple language is important, as other conference-goers on the discussion panel noted. If you can’t speak to people in a language they can readily understand, you’ve already lost them. Not everyone has a medical vocabulary. But when you can engage people in a way that is accessible, direct, and accurate — without being condescending — you can help shape the narrative. In many cases, that approach is exactly what makes misinformation so digestible. We should be using it to promote accurate health information, too.
Provide trusted sources. In the past, a trusted source might have been the New York Times or the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website. Yet, thanks to a splintered information online ecosystem, people today access information from very, very different sources. In the past, to counter anti-vaccine stances, I would likely have posted a link to an NPR or ProPublica story — the places I know have credible sources and strong fact-checking. Engaging on the kind of issues where misinformation thrives, it helps to meet people where they are at, providing stories from their go-to news outlets. Tara Haelle, an independent journalist, shared a story with the workshop audience about expanding a conversation with her conservative father about the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case by sending him a Fox News story.
“I was able to find an article that actually listed the truth about Abrego Garcia’s arrest. And lo and behold, my Dad believed me because I sent him a Fox story,” she said.
While that may not always be possible — although Fox News does have an accurate Q&A piece on the measles outbreak on their website — there are plenty of good sources out there that offer readers simple explainers and Q&As about controversial health topics. These news outlets, medical providers, and non-profit organizations provide great data to help people understand the nuances of different issues. They can also help people reconsider their position, especially when they highlight the potential consequences of ill-informed beliefs.
Connection over combat. The kind of language you use to communicate with those who may believe misinformation is also vital, especially as certain words may be “triggers” for certain audiences, even if they are not meant that way.
“What [words] can we use to deescalate before we even begin?” Haelle said. “I hate to ingratiate but we have to find a way to enter the conversation so they will welcome us talking to them as opposed to feeling that we are an adversary from the start.”
It’s all too easy when you hear or see misinformation from friends or family to immediately respond with “Wrong—and let me tell you why!” That’s what I wanted to do when I saw the vaccine comments on my friend’s social media post. But Haelle said your audience will be more receptive to accurate information when you think about engaging on a personal level.
Stephanie Friedhoff, a professor of practice at Brown University’s Information Futures Lab, agreed. She added that, when you can employ a tone that encourages conversation and engagement, you are more likely to foster some mutual understanding.
“Our conversations are often too focused on opinions and not experience,” she said. “People are fighting over an opinion, but once we start asking about their experiences, entirely different stories emerge.”
And when those stories emerge, you are in a much better position to understand a person’s motivations or reasons for their beliefs and find common ground to sway them toward more accurate sources of information.
Never forget the power of a good story. The best line of the workshop also came from Haelle: “No one likes a pedant. But everybody loves a storyteller.” She reminded the healthcare journalists that stories are the way that humans have learned for centuries. We can make use of that innate ability to help stop the spread of misinformation, both in our reporting and when talking to people who believe questionable things in our personal lives.
Stories work for good reason. They elicit strong emotions. The human brain is wired so that when we feel, we learn. It’s all too easy to believe that people who fall for misinformation do so because they are uneducated or uninformed. But the more plausible explanation is that they encountered a social media post, video, or website that gave them the feels. That’s why no one is really immune from misinformation, no matter what side of the political spectrum you happen to fall on.
Many people who are foregoing vaccines for their children or who are worried about immigration developed those beliefs out of fear. When you understand that — and offer empathy — you often gain the opportunity to learn about an individual’s motivations, as well as share important counter stories. The woman who had a stillbirth after a COVID-19 infection. The mother who is terrified of her child developing subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis (SSPE), a progressive form of brain swelling that can occur years after a measles infection.
Those are terrible stories, of course. But there are also happy ones. The huge drop in cervical cancer rates thanks to wider adoption of the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine. The many people who feel more confident knowing that vaccines are protecting them — and those they love — from preventable diseases as they move freely about the world.
I’m now thinking of all of these variables whenever I do any kind of health-related reporting. But I also kept this advice top of mind when I finally replied to the vaccine comments on my friend’s post. Instead of going off, I offered empathy about fears people had, stories about what can happen when babies aren’t vaccinated on schedule, and some great rumor explainers from the Voices for Vaccines website. While I’m not sure it helped swing my friend’s aunt away from her position, it definitely fostered a more open and fruitful discussion among others who were following along.
Sadly, given our current environment, it would seem it is all but impossible to combat all medical misinformation. But by fostering greater connection across our relationships, maybe we can help slow its spread, keeping the people we love most informed and safe.