Combating Disinformation

🌍 Ten Years After Paris: is the Climate Crisis a Disinformation Crisis? In 2015, the world made a historic promise: to keep global warming well below 2°C, and ideally below 1.5°C. We committed to major emission cuts by 2030, and net-zero by 2050. The Paris Agreement marked a new era of global climate cooperation. But ten years on, we're still struggling with cooperation while the World Meteorological Organization tells us that the Earth’s average temperature exceeded 1.5°C over a 12-month period (Feb 2023–Jan 2024) for the first time. Why? 🔍 A groundbreaking new study, led by 14 researchers for the International Panel on the Information Environment, reviewed 300 studies from 2015–2025. The findings are alarming: powerful interests – fossil fuel companies, populist parties, even some governments – are systematically spreading misleading narratives to delay climate action. 🧠 Misinformation isn't just about denying climate change. It’s now about strategic skepticism – minimizing the threat, casting doubt on science-based solutions, and greenwashing unsustainable practices. 📺 This disinformation flows through social media, news outlets, corporate reports, and even policy briefings. It targets all of us – but especially policymakers, where it can shape laws and delay critical decisions. 💡 So what can we do? 1️⃣ Legislate for transparency and integrity in climate communication. 2️⃣ Hold greenwashers accountable through legal action. 3️⃣ Build global coalitions of civil society, science, and public institutions. 4️⃣ Invest in climate and media literacy for both citizens and leaders. 5️⃣ Amplify voices from underrepresented regions – like Africa – where more research is urgently needed. We must protect not only the planet’s climate, but the integrity of climate information. 🔗 Read more on how disinformation is undermining climate progress – and what we can do about it: https://lnkd.in/eDN9hKAJ 🕰️ The window is small. But with truth, science, and collective action, we can still turn the tide.

🔭Next time you hear someone say “it’s just coms”, pull out the striking visuals provided by the European External Action Service (EEAS) in their last report on information threats / #FIMI ! 🗞️ This 3️⃣rd yearly report focuses on the Architecture of interference, mapping the tactics and visualizing the intent of manipulative threat actors. It sheds light on the comprehensive & multi-layered digital architecture used by authoritarian regimes, esp. Russia 🇷🇺 and China 🇨🇳 to conduct their operations. 🚦Its key message : 🔹Overt and covert channels/media outlets work together to produce operations 🔹threat actors think of this as one unique field 🔹 siloed approaches don’t capture this 🔹making the link btw online channels and threat actors is the basis for attribution & holding them accountable 🔹policy makers must be aware of how official & attributed channels interact with extensive covert network of state-linked channels hidden from the public eye 📊Among the findings : 🔹Different modus operandi of Russian and Chinese FIMI operations, but mutual amplification to reinforce anti-Western messaging 🔹Half of the attacks targeted Ukraine. 🔹France, Germany, Moldova and Sub-Saharan Africa, notably the Sahel also heavily targeted 🔹Elections a key target : 42 Russian attempts recorded during 🇪🇺 elections 🔹institutions attacked too : #EU, #NATO 🔹independent media outlets and individual FIMI defenders among most attacked 📈 Trends 🔺Most activity on social media 🔺X = 88% of detected activity 🔺Key tactics= bot networks, impersonation and creation of inauthentic news websites, Advances in generative Artificial Intelligence use to increase scale 🔎 Methodology : 🔹505 FIMI incidents analysed in 2024, providing an overview of key FIMI trends 🔹38,000 channels 🔹Focus of vast online infrastructure used by Russia and China 🔹Case studies : Russian campaigns in Moldova and Africa, an operation originating from China Conclusion ▪️#FIMI networks adapt their strategies to geopolitical shifts and tailor their tactics to local contexts. ▪️Good tools here to empower citizens in understanding how the integrity of their info space is affected 👏🏼 #EEAS colleagues ! Aude Maio-Coliche Filip Grzegorzewski An inspiration for Sabrina Spieleder & team to keep up the good work 🎯

The current energy shock makes the case for renewables more obvious than ever. It also generates the windfall profits and public anxiety that the architects of delay reinvest into manufactured doubt. As I argued in an earlier post, our information systems are structurally vulnerable to disinformation, mostly because of economic incentives. To fix that, we should apply the "polluter pays" principle to the information environment. There is a growing body of evidence showing how legitimate concerns are deliberately amplified and distorted by private and state actors whose revenues depend on prolonging fossil fuel dependence. Last week, a WindEurope report mapped 573 accounts spreading anti-wind power disinformation across Europe: 42,000 posts reaching tens of millions. Wind projects worth billions have been delayed or cancelled, sometimes violently, on the back of false claims. A recent DeSmog / POLITICO Europe investigation uncovered a Paris PR firm running fake Facebook accounts for a gas trade group, discrediting heat pumps with fabricated stories and AI-generated images. Sometimes so clumsily that even group members began questioning whether the accounts were real. Earlier this year, Clean Creatives documented 1,217 active contracts between ad agencies and fossil fuel companies in 2025. EUvsDisinfo and NATO have analysed how Russia, whose revenues remain tied to fossil fuel exports, is a major driver of climate disinformation in Europe. For Europeans, the consensus is there; people are not confused. 88% support more renewables, 81% back climate neutrality by 2050 (EU Commission). But when misleading narratives are produced and distributed on an industrial scale, even informed citizens struggle to know what is true. The energy transition involves real trade-offs that can only be navigated honestly in an information environment that is not deliberately distorted. Just as individual carbon footprint is sometimes used to shift the climate burden onto people rather than systems, we now risk shifting the burden of disinformation onto individual media literacy. The problem starts with an unregulated supply chain of falsehoods. The Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change, signed by 27 countries at COP30, provides a framework. Governments and the private sector must now act on it. Funding independent journalism; taxing windfall profits that fund delay; and regulating the intermediaries such as PR firms, platforms, even media outlets when they produce and distribute false narratives, are essential steps to take.

Regulatory landscape against greenwashing 🌎 Regulations to prevent greenwashing are becoming increasingly stringent as governments and regulatory bodies worldwide seek to ensure that environmental claims are accurate, transparent, and verifiable. Historically, misleading green claims were regulated under general consumer protection laws, but the growing prevalence of sustainability-related marketing has led to more specific guidelines. Authorities such as the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and the European Commission have introduced new frameworks, including the Green Claims Code and the Green Claims Directive (GCD), to provide stricter oversight and enforcement. These initiatives aim to prevent businesses from using vague or deceptive sustainability claims to mislead consumers. Regulatory enforcement has intensified, with an increasing number of lawsuits and penalties for companies found guilty of greenwashing. In recent years, consumer protection agencies and advertising regulators in the US, UK, and EU have taken legal action against major brands that have misrepresented their environmental impact. Beyond government interventions, watchdog organizations and class-action lawsuits are holding companies accountable, resulting in substantial financial and reputational consequences. One of the key areas of regulatory focus is third-party certifications, which many companies use to validate their environmental credentials. However, the credibility of certification schemes varies widely, and some have been criticized for lacking independent verification or rigorous standards. To address this, the GCD explicitly bans self-certified sustainability labels and mandates that all new certifications undergo prior approval before being used in the EU. Only those that demonstrate meaningful environmental impact and transparency will be permitted, reducing the risk of misleading claims disguised under weak or unregulated certifications. Another significant shift in greenwashing regulations is the requirement for companies to consider the entire lifecycle of their products when making sustainability claims. As regulations become more stringent, companies will need to proactively adapt their sustainability strategies to remain compliant and credible. The shift towards greater transparency, stricter verification processes, and lifecycle-based assessments signals a new era of accountability in corporate sustainability. Businesses that fail to meet these evolving standards risk legal action, financial penalties, and consumer distrust, while those that embrace more rigorous sustainability reporting and certification processes will be better positioned to build trust and demonstrate genuine commitment to environmental responsibility. Source: Anthesis Group #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #greenwashing

Pleased to launch "Facts not fakes: Tackling #disinformation, strengthening information integrity". ⤵️⤵️   As about half of the world’s voting age population will go the election polls this year, our new flagship OECD - OCDE report "Facts not fakes: Tackling disinformation, strengthening #informationintegrity" underscores the need for democracies to uphold diverse, high-quality information spaces that support freedom of opinion and expression and sheds light on policies that may be utilised to increase the degree of accountability and transparency of online platforms.   As we all know, disinformation has always existed and the misuse of information for economic or political advantage as well. What is new today is the scale of these operations and the constant evolution and sophistication of the techniques used to deliberately deceive or mislead people.    For over a year, the OECD has been working to collect evidence on how governments are promoting a culture of integrity in the information space. We have had extensive exchanges with experts from governments of OECD and non-OECD countries, academia, civil society, the media and businesses to identify best practices, learn from mistakes and find effective solutions.    Our report presents a comprehensive analytical framework aimed at strengthening information integrity, recognising that, while country contexts may differ, common areas of policy action exist.    This framework looks at three complementary policy dimensions:    ➡️ enhancing the transparency, accountability, and plurality of information sources;   ➡️ fostering societal resilience to disinformation; and   ➡️ upgrading governance measures and institutional architecture to uphold the integrity of information spaces.    With this evolving framework we hope to move the conversation on information integrity forward and to develop a common language for practical policy guidance. By building understanding of what successful policy responses look like, this framework can help inform policy design and implementation, as well as serve as a baseline for measuring progress in the fight against disinformation.     "Facts Not Fakes" represents a major milestone in our Reinforcing Democracy Initiative. It is the culmination of work of the DIS/MIS Resource Hub, the reflections of the OECD Expert Group on Governance Responses to Mis- and Disinformation, and our first conference on Tackling Disinformation and Strengthening Information Integrity in November last year.    The second Global Forum on Building Trust and Reinforcing Democracy will take place in Autumn 2024 – watch this space for further updates.    See the report: https://lnkd.in/d-pG_ZzA With thanks to Mathias Cormann Jean-Noël Barrot Eileen Donahoe JD, Ph.D and our panellists: Joao Brant Oana Goga Paul joel Kamtchang and Christophe Deloire

TotalEnergies Loses In Paris Court, Marking A Turning Point For Fossil Fuel Truth-In-Advertising A French court just ruled that TotalEnergies misled consumers about its climate ambitions. The case was not about emissions or spills but about truth in advertising. The judges found that calling itself “a major player in the energy transition” while expanding oil and gas production violated consumer protection law. The company must remove the misleading language, publish the ruling, and pay fines. CleanTechnica article: https://lnkd.in/g6Eg6Jn4 The decision matters because it turns greenwashing into a legal issue, not just a reputational one. It shows that courts can hold companies accountable for the gap between marketing and reality. TotalEnergies still earns over 90% of its revenue from hydrocarbons, yet its branding suggests it is already halfway to net zero. The court simply compared words to numbers and found they did not match. This is part of a larger trend. Canada’s Bill C-59, the EU’s Green Claims Directive, and the UK’s advertising regulators are tightening standards for environmental marketing. The International Court of Justice has also confirmed that states can be held responsible for the climate harms of their state-owned oil companies. Together, these moves mark a turning point: language about climate action is now subject to the same scrutiny as balance sheets.

My latest paper, “African Democracy in the Era of Generative Disinformation: Challenges and Countermeasures against AI-Generated Propaganda,” is now available on ResearchGate: https://lnkd.in/ed3Nkab4! Last week, I shared this paper at the “Building a Just AI Ecosystem in Africa” Conference hosted by Research ICT Africa and at the “AI, Elections, and the Future of Democracy and Leadership: Global Experiences and Directions” Conference hosted by the University of Johannesburg Department of Politics & International Relations. This work examines the risks associated with the spread of generative AI-driven disinformation within Africa, particularly in democratic processes. It explores several case studies of generative AI usage during African elections and coups over the past decade. I also highlight efforts from fact-checking organizations across the continent to counteract mis/disinformation spread through direct engagement with the general public, partnerships with social media companies, and media literacy training. Additionally, I explore efforts from large tech companies to identify, decelerate, and eradicate mis/disinformation and discuss the implications of incorporating AI within these processes. To conclude, this work outlines potential efforts to increase AI, digital, and media literacy within the general public, and regulatory measures African governments should consider to govern generative AI and other emerging technologies. Feel free to check it out! #GenerativeAI #Elections #AfricanDevelopment #ArtificialIntelligence #Research

Everyone’s talking about Muck Rack’s 2025 State of Journalism report. It’s a doozy. But too many takeaways stop at the surface. “Don’t be overly promotional.” “Pitch within the reporter’s beat.” “Keep it short.” All true. All timeless. But if you work in crisis communications or anywhere near the intersection of trust, media, and AI, those are just table stakes. The real story is what the report says about disinformation and AI’s double-edged role in modern journalism. Here’s where every in-house and agency team should be paying the closest attention: 🧨 The Risk Landscape: What Journalists Are Actually Worried About: 🚨 Disinformation is the #1 concern Over 1 in 3 journalists named it their top professional challenge—more than funding, job security, or online harassment. 🤖 AI is everywhere and largely unregulated 77% of journalists use tools like ChatGPT and AI transcription; but most work in newsrooms with no AI policies or editorial guidelines. 🤔 Audience trust is cracking Journalists are keenly aware of public skepticism, especially when it comes to AI-generated content on complex topics like public safety, politics, or science. 🤖 ‼️ Deepfakes and manipulated media are on the rise As I discussed yesterday in the AI PR Nightmares series, the tools to fabricate reality are here. And most organizations aren’t ready. 🛡️ What Smart Comms Teams Should Do Next 1. Label AI content before someone else exposes it: → Add “AI-assisted” disclosures to public-facing materials—even if it’s just for internal drafts. Transparency builds resilience. 2. Don’t outsource final judgment to a tool: → Use AI to draft or summarize, but ensure every high-stakes message—especially in a crisis—is reviewed by a human with context and authority. 3. Get serious about deepfake detection: → If your org handles audio or video from public figures, execs, or customers, implement deepfake scanning. Better to screen than go viral for the wrong reasons. 4. Set up disinfo early warning systems: → Combine AI-powered media monitoring with human review to track false narratives before they go wide. 5. Build your AI & disinfo playbook now: → Don’t wait for legal or IT to set policy. Comms should lead here. A one-pager with do’s, don’ts, and red flag escalation rules goes a long way. 6. Train everyone who touches messaging: → Even if you have a great media team, everyone in your org needs a baseline understanding of how disinfo spreads and how AI can help or hurt your credibility. TL/DR: AI and misinformation aren’t future threats. They’re already shaping how journalists vet sources, evaluate pitches, and report stories. If your communications team isn’t prepared to manage that reality (during a crisis or otherwise), you’re operating with a blind spot. If you’re working on these challenges—or trying to, drop me a line if I can help.

Trust in American institutions has been declining for years. Today less than half of Americans trust health care leaders, and health care journalism is rated last in terms of trust from America’s public—all according to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer. While some researchers say the phenomenon of mistrust isn't new and has come in waves across a century of American history, the recent Edelman findings feel especially troubling now as we look ahead to the future of US health care.    No one has all the answers on where to go from here, but as I consider the road ahead, I’m grounded in part by the strategies shared by David Rousseau and Noam Levey on separate past episodes of the podcast I host with Don Berwick, Turn on the Lights. The strategies they each offered for building public trust in journalism can be applied by health care leaders in the work we do every day --   1. Be transparent about your methods. Show people the data, sources, best practices that inform your thinking.   2. Have the humility to know you don’t always know the answers.    3. Bring in local expert voices that your community/audience connects with and trusts, and make sure those voices are diverse.   4. Use plain language, never jargon. Connect with people in their terms and on their terms.    5. Make people/patients the focus, always. Put their experiences, needs, assumptions, point of view at the center of EVERY cause, case, and communication you make.    Trust is crucial for optimal functioning of the health care system. Whether you’re a health care journalist, leader, or provider you can put these strategies to work and contribute to our collective rebuilding of trust in health care.    For more, listen to past episodes of Turn on the Lights here: https://bit.ly/3YWXL5f and explore IHI’s theory of how to repair, build, and strengthen organizational trustworthiness in health care: https://bit.ly/40MNQkh. 

🧵 New report just dropped 🚨 "Fractured Reality: How Democracy Can Win the Global Struggle Over the Information Space" — from the EU Joint Research Centre, led by Mario Scharfbillig and I. A landmark read for anyone working on disinformation, platforms & democracy. 👇 1/10 The core problem: the attention economy. Platforms maximise engagement, not truth. Algorithms reward negative, emotional & divisive content — not because of malice, but because that's what keeps eyes on screen. Democracy pays the price. 2/10 Disinformation has evolved. We've moved beyond isolated false claims to a "Fantasy-Industrial Complex" — a loosely coordinated ecosystem that floods the zone with distrust, distraction & anti-democratic sentiment. The goal isn't to convince — it's to confuse. 3/10 Key stat: misinformation exposure hovers around 1–10% of civic content online, rising to 10–30% for contentious topics \(climate, health, Russia/Ukraine\). And 47% of older adults hold misinformed beliefs about health issues. Scale matters. 4/10 Generative AI is amplifying this further. While evidence it's been a "game changer" in elections is still limited, it creates the illusion of knowledge — especially when blended with social media. The threat is real, even if still emerging. 5/10 The report's first fix: don't blame users. Blaming individuals for being misinformed is a misdiagnosis. We need systemic reform — better platform design, crowdsourced knowledge \(like Wikipedia\), media literacy, and fact-checking that actually reaches people. 6/10 Second fix: reform the business model. Proposals include a progressive digital advertising tax, interoperability & in-situ data rights so users can choose their own algorithms. As long as misinformation is profitable, it will persist. 7/10 Third fix: EU digital sovereignty. Most major platforms are foreign-owned & may not share European democratic values. The report backs decentralised alternatives — think Mastodon, FediVerse, Eurosky — and calls for a "European CERN for Data & Democracy." 8/10 77% of experts surveyed call the current trajectory — a "struggle for information supremacy" — harmful. Only 3% see it as beneficial. The solutions exist. The political will is what's needed. 9/10 Launched today at the Cambridge Disinformation Summit. Read the full report 👇 https://sks.to/fractured @scharfbillig.bsky.social @sachaltay.bsky.social @https://lnkd.in/eihFADYN @sebavalenz.bsky.social @ulliecker.bsky.social @michaelemann.bsky.social @naomioreskes.bsky.social 10/10