Recently published studies in the incontestably prestigious journal Science providing a broader view of misinformation have profound implications for future misinformation management.

MIT social scientists determined that information that is not flagrantly false but still raises skepticism about vaccines had more of an impact when appearing in mainstream media outlets than information posted on social media by fringe epidemiologists that was quickly flagged by Expert™ fact-checkers. That’s because mainstream media have broader reach while social media posts can be made to disappear under the influence of clandestine government handlers.

The paper found that “exposure to stories they came to define as “vaccine-skeptical” — that is, stories that were not false and alluded to potentially harmful health effects resulting from the vaccine — reduced vaccination intentions 46 times more than misinformation flagged by fact-checkers” (-2.28% vs. -.05%).

As reported by MIT Sloan Ideas Made to Matter, “The most influential vaccine-skeptical headline, which was published by the Chicago Tribune, read “A Healthy Doctor Died Two Weeks After Getting a COVID Vaccine; CDC Is Investigating Why.”

Questioning established public policy narratives can do great harm, especially to the credibility of Experts™ and the careers of the politicians and bureaucrats they serve. Hence, the study recommends that media platforms “devote more attention to understanding and limiting the unfettered spread of harmful content that is misleading without being literally false.”

As explained by the paper’s lead author, MIT PhD Candidate Jennifer Allen, “We, as a society, may decide that’s an acceptable trade-off when balanced against free expression.”

White House We-as-a-Society Prolocutor Dr. Ferrum Pugnus strongly endorses this settled science.