Combating Misinformation and Rumours

I agree with all your points. Very helpful. I would just add two:

1) Being transparent about what is NOT known about COVID-19 is probably just as important about sharing what is known.  An op-ed piece in the NY Times today is titled: "Let's Remmber That the Coronavirus is Still a Mystery". A little humility can go a long way to building the trust needed to counter rumors and misinformation.

2) Recalling past success stories and lessons learned from previous pandemics might add authority to prescriptions and advice about desired behaviors in the context of COVID-19. If I want to counter misinformation from anti-vaxers about the COVID vaccine, I might want to show them my Polio Pioneer card from 1954, when I received the Salk Vaccine during the first human trials, and tell them about generations of kids who don't have to live in iron lungs thanks to the vaccine. Ebola has rich lessons applicable to COVID. 

I guess an overall thought is that political and ideological affiliation has been shown to weigh heavily when people assess info, as much or more than facts and evidence. Without being partisan, how can we tailor our communication to bridge ideological divides based on whatever common ground exists in polarized societies? 

Hope this is helpful...   

1.    Basic Approach: Paradigms need re-visiting. The western / northern attitude creeps up, albeit unintentionally. E.g.: Opening part of para 3 in The Challenge. My view: Is it really the gap between wealthy and poorer countries? I believe it is the disease control approach that countries choose to adopt. Italy, UK, USA are proof of no connect with the GDP-strategy / wealthy-poorer nations point vs number of beds / ventilators / health infrastructure.
 

2.    Overall Content Style:

- Language definitely needs simplification. E.g.: Communications either responding to actual misinformation or getting out front of potential rumours and misinformation need to resonate.

- Sentences need editing for clarity. E.g.: Last para in The Challenge is 36 words.

- Bulleting should be used for separation – instead of long paras with semi-colons.

- Make two sections for better focus: Premise and Pointers (or any suitable word). E.g.: Communications either responding to actual misinformation or getting out front of potential rumours and misinformation need to resonate. I re-read this thrice and have still not understood the import.

E.g.:

Premise: Everyone is part of a network, increasingly on social media. Those networks inter-relate so that there is significant scale.

Pointers: Find ways to identify the most popular and prevalent networks and engage in those spaces. Do not create your own platform and space in the expectation that people will come to you in significant numbers.

3.    Point 3, as presented, is dangerous territory and can lead to further stereotyping and inflammatory circumstances. Can be modified by combining with Point 5.

4.    Point 4: This is a question mark for me. We need to clarify this further. Expert-based two-way with institutions and government agencies is one issue. Concept / perception-based two-way communication on internet-based platforms of all hues is another matter.

I think this is a great foundation. What I usually structure communications around is 3 key elements drawn from Aristotle. He talked about evidence (what he called logos) as being just one component of the art of persuasion. He said we also need to pay attention to the credibility of the speaker (ethos) and the appeal to the emotions (pathos). 

I think the structure you have offered includes pathos (storytelling) and logos (scientific evidence) in point 2. However, I don't see clearly the value of thinking about the credibility of the speaker (ethos). You say to go to the people, but maybe you could add something about making sure you have speakers who are seen to be credible by those you are trying to reach. This could also be reinforced in point 4, in having dialogues -- making sure that the dialogue is with credible sources. This doesn't mean credible just from our perspective, but also credible in the eyes of those receiving the information.

While I find the article very engaging I am a bit puzzled by point 2. I agree that facts alone are rarely convincing, but if anything this pandemia has confirmed the recennt trend that facts are seldom facts, that is media, politicans and experts are getting used to mix opinions, facts and wishes in a single category. And any claim out of this mix is often sold as the truth. It has been extremely difficult to identify and discern facts from opinions and hypothesis during the times of Covid-19. Hence more than storytelling accompanying facts we should lok for ways to validate facts and separate them from other categories. I know there is no simple way of achieving this, but we should not assume that facts will be automatically and easily sort it out and recognized by audiences, because these last few years have showned that this is not the case.

Overall, very timely and much needed resource. which ideally would be updated as the pandemic evolves and responses adapt and are proven to be successful. My comments:

1.     Content:

-      Trusted source – the 'ethos' issue.  Include the importance of using trusted sources/messengers either via social media or where appropriate, directly – e.g. through mosque or other publicly amplified sound system.

-      Social/Media literacy – this comes up in the ‘Key Considerations…’ link but perhaps would be useful to foreground it in the main body of the paper. I.e. to encourage social media users to check or question the sources of information they receive? There are still pitfalls with this approach. I have personally seen misinformation spread on Whatsapp groups that I belong to purporting to be from UNICEF. The posts contain the correct logo but the informal style and the low standard of English means the content is clearly not from an official source. However for someone who is not a mother tongue English speaker and/or whose own standard of English is not high or is colloquial, it would not be obvious that it could not have come from a bona fide source.  How can we address this kind of barrier?

2.     Format/presentation:

-      More information, less verbiage

-      Punchier, bullet points, shorter sentences and words. e.g. the paragraph starting ‘Adding further….’ is basically one long sentence

-      Consistency in approach: the examples in the paragraph beginning ‘It came upon us quickly are a mix of questions and statements. Perhaps list them in bullet points as questions (with the current status of knowledge in brackets next to them – yes/no/not yet known)

-      Embedded links should ideally take the reader directly to clearer and shorter sources e.g. a brief with the take home messages from the Ukrainian study; part 3 of Internews guide; the MEND 7 page guide, rather than requiring them to click through at least one further link

I look forward to seeing the revised document!

An interesting piece. Just a few points, there has been some great comments already.

1. Agree with the comments on needing to tighten and simplify the language. Shorter sentences, more information, less narrative. I actually missed the fact it was specifically a paper on digital platforms at first, so this needs to be highlighted better in the opening. As well as including something to acknowledge that digital platforms can be effective but are not always the best way to reach the most vulnerable (particularly women / illiterate / those who speak minority languages etc)

2. I think it needs some context also highlighting the different groups spreading misinformation via the internet / digital platforms and why they might be doing it. For example VEOs i.e. Al Shabab who are exploiting the COVID-19 situation to radicalize and recruit. This could also be highlighted more in point 3, which I agree with one of the previous reviewers needs to be adapted slightly. I think rather than naming and shaming the source, this is about developing media literacy and critical thinking skills.

3. Go to the people is important - but suggest adding the WHO and HOW. Whilst peer to peer social networks are great, ensuring the consistency of messaging as it is spread through social networks is incredibly hard as is trying to 'infiltrate' or use existing networks if you are not a trusted / respected source. 

4. Linked to the above is the importance of contexualizing based on who you are trying to reach, sometimes on a hyper-local level. This could mean local languages, or local voices and all would mean having a deep understanding of the misinformation as it amplies in different context. You need to stand out in a sea of messaging / voices on COVID-19 and the more you understand your audience the more successful you will be in cutting through.

5. Currently the points mentioned miss the gender dynamic. Particularly as there is a focus on social media, wihch is often not so available to women and girls. Also messaging 'the public' as a homogenous groups will often result in messaging that does not apply to or take into consideration the specific needs of women and girls.

6. Pulling in more from the links would be helpful, both encouraging people to click through and also highlighting the key aspects for those who do not have time to click through.