Disinformation, Propaganda, Misinformation, and Fake News — Vocabulary Flashcards
What is disinformation? Is it different from propaganda?
Disinformation is a relatively new term; traced to the Russian word dezinformatsiya, defined by Soviet planners in the 1950s as “dissemination (in the press, on the radio, etc.) of false reports intended to mislead public opinion.”
In other accounts, earliest use is sometimes linked to the 1930s Nazi Germany. In either case, terminology evolves with political context.
Key distinctions among terms
Misinformation: the inadvertent sharing of false information. Generally agreed to be unintentional.
Disinformation: deliberate, purposeful manipulation intended to mislead and to pursue a broader agenda. Not necessarily built on outright lies; can be factual with missing context or blended with falsehoods.
Propaganda: the use of information (often non-rational or emotionally charged) to influence political outcomes; overlaps with disinformation but is not identical in intent or method.
A popular distinction for disinformation emphasizes intent to undermine civic engagement and mobilization by sowing cynicism, uncertainty, apathy, distrust, and paranoia.
This intent-driven framing helps separate disinformation from routine persuasion or marketing.
In a Russian context, observers describe a “4D” offensive aimed at advancing Moscow’s foreign policy goals through:
Dismiss: dismiss an opponent’s claims or allegations
Distort: distort events to serve political purposes
Distract: distract from one’s own activities
Dismay: dismay those who might oppose one’s goals
What about propaganda vs disinformation?
Some scholars treat propaganda as distinct or overlapping; debates exist about the degree of overlap.
Propaganda: historically linked to selective information to advance political aims, sometimes using non-rational arguments.
Disinformation: a subset that emphasizes deliberate falsification and manipulation, often as part of a larger campaign.
The digital media shift has amplified disinformation by weakening traditional gatekeepers and altering incentives for content providers.
Digital advertising now plays a central role in shaping news consumption and political persuasion.
Example: in September of 2017, Facebook disclosed roughly 3{,}000 ads related to divisive US political issues purchased by a network of 470 accounts and pages suspected to be run out of Russia; at least a portion of those ads targeted users geographically, with a substantial minority of ads geo-targeted, estimated at 0.25 of the total (i.e., ≥ 0.25).
Misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda in the digital age
These forms often rely on tailored messaging and sophisticated targeting to maximize impact while minimizing the chance of exposure or accountability.
The rise of platforms and ad-based revenue models has created incentives for high-reach, low-cost manipulation.
Disinformation in the digital age
The reemergence of interest in disinformation is not about new techniques but about how the digital revolution enhances vulnerability to manipulation.
Social media platforms have grown in influence, often dominating advertising revenues and shaping information ecosystems.
Examples and scale
In 2016, RT, a state-funded broadcaster, spent 274{,}100 on advertising targeting users in the United States.
The overall scale of low-quality political information on digital platforms during the 2016 US elections was larger than previously thought, with notable concentration in swing states; ongoing research aims to track and analyze the extent and sources.
The role of targeted ads and platform dynamics
Digital advertising enables more sophisticated forms of propaganda and manipulation, including targeted messaging that resonates with specific demographic or geographic groups.
The rise of ‘fake news’
Emergence and definition
Fake news refers to misleading content found on the internet, especially on social media.
There is no universal definition; analysts identify multiple types of fake content.
Five reported types of fake news (examples include but are not limited to):
Intentionally deceptive content
Jokes taken at face value
Large-scale hoaxes
Slanted reporting of real facts
Coverage where the truth is uncertain or contentious
Historical examples and platform dynamics
A 2011 example involved websites posing as real news outlets to spread false health information (e.g., about acai berries).
Much of fake news content is produced by for-profit websites and Facebook pages designed to game advertising revenue.
Platform responses and trends
By 2015, Facebook began addressing fake news as “news feed spam.”
By 2016, the problem grew: fabricated, fiercely partisan political content—often produced abroad for profit—began to outpace engagement with credible mainstream outlets.
Facebook pledged to respond with expanded partnerships with fact-checkers, enhanced detection/reporting, warning labels for untrustworthy stories, and a crackdown on for-profit fake news pages.
Twitter experimented with features to allow users to report fake news and explored machine learning to detect automated accounts spreading political content.
Is fake news disinformation?
Fake news often does not meet the strict definition of disinformation or propaganda.
Motives are usually financial rather than political, and it is not always tied to a larger strategic agenda.
A common taxonomy places misinformation (inadvertent) and disinformation (deliberate); fake news often sits in between, driven by profit rather than influence.
When fake news has a political purpose, it begins to resemble more insidious content.
Why fake news matters for analysis
It demonstrates how confirmation bias and personalized feeds can fuel engagement with misleading content.
Political actors can leverage incendiary fake content to spread rapidly through grassroots networks, a phenomenon sometimes called political astroturfing.
Marketing, public affairs, public diplomacy, and other “information campaigns”
Distinctions among information campaigns and their relationship to propaganda/disinformation
Marketing and public relations (PR) use facts, opinions, and emotional cues to persuade and build affinity for brands or organizations; outcomes may be commercial or political.
Public diplomacy involves states presenting favorable viewpoints to foreign audiences to cultivate positive perceptions; it should avoid intentionally spreading false information or relying on non-rational persuasion when done well.
These campaigns fall under the umbrella of strategic communication: the purposeful use of information to advance an organization’s mission (corporate, government, non-profit, or military).
Strategic communication in military context
A 2007 U.S. Army War College paper describes strategic communication as aiming to influence adversaries, reassure allies, and persuade publics.
Some scholars argue that deception should be rigorously forbidden in strategic communication and that disinformation should never be considered part of strategic communication.
Distinguishing features
The boundary between legitimate information campaigns and propaganda/disinformation can be blurry, especially when campaigns mix facts with opinions or manipulate emotions.
The ethical and practical implications hinge on intent, truthfulness, and the use (or misuse) of non-rational persuasion.
Intent as a distinguishing feature
Intent matters for differentiating content types
If the messenger’s intent is to mislead or disrupt, the content aligns more with disinformation or undermining aims.
It can be difficult to draw a bright line between marketing/public affairs/public diplomacy and propaganda/disinformation when content contains both facts and subjective interpretation.
Falsehoods complicate classification
When content includes falsehoods, it can be unclear whether deception is intentional or accidental.
If a campaign uses falsehoods and emotional appeals not to persuade, but to disrupt, divide, confuse, or deteriorate target audiences’ understanding or political cohesion, it aligns with disinformation and its undermining function.
Non-state actors and broader applicability
The framework for intent applies to state actors as well as non-state actors who seek to influence or destabilize audiences.
Information operations as a tool of political influence
Emergence and definition
Information campaigns with strategic goals are sometimes referred to as “information operations.” Historically a term used by defense communities to describe military information operations broadly.
In April of 2017, Facebook described information (or influence) operations on its platform that combine methods like false news, disinformation, or networks of fake accounts (false amplifiers) to manipulate public opinion; these operations aim to achieve a strategic or geopolitical outcome.
Illustrative cases and scale
In the run-up to the 2017 French presidential election, Facebook deleted roughly 30{,}000 fake French accounts; an information operation (likely of Russian origin) released hacked documents just before a legally mandated election news blackout to damage Emmanuel Macron’s campaign, who ultimately won the election.
The manipulation of information has been a feature of the Syrian civil war since its outset.
Research across diverse country case studies suggests a broad spectrum of political, military, and private actors now routinely use social media to influence public opinion.
National examples and actors
Italy’s populist Five Star Movement is connected to a large constellation of online disinformation outlets.
Taiwanese democracy faces both domestic and cross-strait sources of disinformation.
Outlook
Information operations, including disinformation during elections, are expected to remain a tool of political influence for the foreseeable future.
Ethical and strategic considerations
The persistent challenge is balancing effective strategic communication with safeguarding truth, transparency, and democratic processes.
Summary of key concepts and relationships
Disinformation vs misinformation vs propaganda
Intent and accuracy shape classification; disinformation is deliberate and often part of a broader agenda.
Fake news as a category within the information ecosystem
Frequently profit-driven rather than purely political; can nonetheless influence political views and outcomes, especially via confirmation bias and network effects.
Information campaigns and strategic communication
Different purposes (commercial, diplomatic, military) but shared tools and techniques; ethical boundaries matter, especially regarding deception.
Information operations as a persistent tool
Modern platforms and ad-driven landscapes magnify the reach and impact of organized influence campaigns, including those with foreign origins.
Key numbers to remember (for quick recall)
3{,}000 ads
470 accounts/pages
0.25 (≥ quarter) of ads geo-targeted
274{,}100 spent by RT in 2016 on US-targeted ads
30{,}000 fake French accounts deleted (2017)
Years/periods: 1950s (origin of term in Soviet usage), 1930s (Nazi Germany usage), 1600s (origin of the term propaganda)
Swing states consideration in 2016$$ US elections discussions (scale of low-quality information prominent in those states)
Ethical and practical implications to consider
The responsibility of platforms to monitor and mitigate manipulation while preserving free expression.
The need for media literacy to counteract confirmation bias and tailored misinformation.
The importance of transparency in political advertising and in disclosures about information campaigns.
The risk of eroding trust in public institutions and democratic processes through strategic disinformation.