Debunking health misinformation isn’t just about correcting false claims. It’s about building trust, choosing words with care, and meeting people where they are, without compromising the facts, according to the panelists of a workshop held at the Association of Health Care Journalists’ annual conference in Los Angeles in May.
The panelists’ advice centered on one core idea: To be effective in covering health misinformation, journalists need to shift from correction to connection.
“I think what we’re living through now is what I would call an age of disengagement,” said Karen Ernst, director of the family-led organization Voices for Vaccines and one of the panelists. “People have disengaged themselves from each other, from their communities, from their neighborhoods.”
And that disengagement hampers trust — in science, in public health and in journalism.
“As someone who works in public health, that’s really scary for me, because public health doesn’t work unless we acknowledge how interdependent we are,” Ernst said during the workshop, titled “How to combat health misinformation at the top.”
The panelists encouraged journalists to build trust with their audiences through transparency, humility and consistent engagement.
“It’s one of those moments where journalists are again thrown into an entirely different reality and environment, and you need to pivot quickly,” said Stefanie Friedhoff, a panelist, veteran journalist, co-founder of the Information Futures Lab and professor of practice at the Brown University School of Public Health. “I want to acknowledge that this is a lot to take in and that it’s really important to take care of yourself at this moment, but also we collectively need to think about the bigger changes that are happening, and we can work collaboratively in this environment to be effective, because nobody can do this alone.”
I organized and moderated the panel, which took place on May 29. Panelists included Ernst, Friedhoff, Tara Haelle, an independent science and health journalist; and Lynn Walsh, a journalist and assistant director of Trusting News, a support and research organization dedicated to helping journalists evolve their practices to actively earn the trust of their audiences.
We have summarized the panelists’ advice in the following 12 tips.
1. Think about the language you use. Even the term ‘misinformation’ can be problematic.
Words carry weight, especially when covering emotionally charged topics like vaccines. The language you choose can either open a door or shut it, the panelists said.
For instance, the term “misinformation” can be problematic in journalism because it often signals judgment rather than understanding. While journalists may use it to describe factually incorrect claims, many audience members see it as dismissive or accusatory, especially if they believe the information they’ve encountered is true.
“The term ‘misinformation’ has lost its meaning,” said Haelle, the health beat leader for infectious diseases and medical studies at the Association of Health Care Journalists. “I think we need to think carefully about the precision of language. … We have to find a way to enter into the conversation in a way that they are going to welcome us talking to them, as opposed to feeling like we are an adversary.”
For example, Voices for Vaccines, which has a weekly newsletter that debunks three vaccine falsehoods in each edition, avoids the word “misinformation” when possible.
“People who may fall prey to [vaccine] misinformation don’t think it’s misinformation, so we call them vaccine ‘rumors’,” Ernst said. “And we make a point to put it in as plain a language as possible, but also to explain the science behind why this rumor isn’t completely true, so that people can walk away from it, not just understanding why that rumor isn’t true, but also inoculated against some future untruths and falsehoods.”
The panelists encouraged news teams to have discussions about the use of certain words in news stories.
“Maybe it’s time to no longer use that specific news language that we’re using here and speak in a tone that people can engage with,” Friedhoff said.
2. Verify everything — including government sources.
Take extra precautions in your reporting at a time when uncertainty about the scientific evidence behind the data and information posted on federal health websites continues to mount.
A recent example is a Trump administration “Make America Healthy Again” report, which cited several studies that didn’t exist.
“We have to go through a lot of primary sources,” Haelle said. “We have to understand what science is and isn’t, what the process of research and doing science really does and doesn’t look like.”
“I think it’s OK to acknowledge that we’re going to feel uncertain and that it’s really hard to navigate,” Haelle added. “I think if you don’t think it’s hard, you’re probably missing things.”
3. Trust your audience with information. They can handle nuance.
Oversimplifying information to protect the public can backfire.
Friedhoff said that audiences are more capable of grasping complex, evolving science than we often assume. It is possible to communicate nuance in plain language.
Rather than hiding uncertainty or nuance, be transparent about what’s still under investigation or debated. That shows respect for the audience’s ability to think critically and the openness helps strengthen trust and credibility, the panelists said.
So, when you find that certain vaccines can have rare side effects, include them in your reporting and show the reader where that evidence comes from.
“Acknowledge these types of things, and trust people that they’re able to handle the information,” Friedhoff said.
4. Lead with empathy, not confrontation, to build trust.
The tone you use in your reporting can make or break trust.
Friedhoff cautioned against flat-out refutations, which can come across as combative. Phrases like “this is not true” may sound like a challenge, she said, especially if the person is emotionally invested in the belief.
Instead, use softer language that acknowledges concerns and builds rapport. The goal is to keep the door open for conversation rather than shutting it down.
“The one thing that we know from research is that relationships trump facts every time,” Friedhoff said.
Friedhoff underscored that journalists should focus not only on content but on connection. That might mean showing up consistently, listening, and engaging with communities even when there isn’t a breaking story.
When people trust you, they’re more likely to trust your reporting, even when it challenges their beliefs, she said.
“Our conversations are too often focused on opinions and not on experience,” Friedhoff said. “That’s where the storytelling framework comes in. Once we start asking them about their experiences, entirely different stories emerge, and they allow us to go into some of their motivations.”
5. Meet people where they are.
Sometimes, a little give-and-take helps move the conversation forward during the reporting process and build trust with sources, Haelle said.
Instead of insisting on scientific language or your preferred sources, look for ways to meet people on their turf.
That might mean using terms they’re familiar with or addressing their concerns first before steering the conversation toward accurate information. It’s about compromise, without sacrificing truth.
When possible, link to sources your audience already trusts, even if you wouldn’t normally choose them. This can help build bridges without endorsing misinformation.
Haelle described using Fox News links to reach someone who wouldn’t trust mainstream or left-leaning sources. This doesn’t mean compromising on facts. It means recognizing the power of framing and source credibility.
Presenting reliable information from a source the audience already trusts can lower their defenses and open their minds.
Journalists can also build relationships with trusted messengers, who can, in turn, help them build relationships with communities.
Trusted messengers can help translate journalism into local languages, cultures, context and information consumption habits, Friedhoff said.
In late 2023, Friedhoff’s Information Futures Lab teamed up with the community organization We Are Más to test a “rapid response” model called The Information Project, aimed at Spanish-speaking diaspora populations in South Florida.
The pilot recruited 25 trusted community messengers, called Information Navigators, who submitted weekly questions, concerns, and rumors they encountered to participants, including a mix of health, political, climate, and personal-safety topics.
The team responded to participants with brief, culturally adapted, empathetic content delivered via WhatsApp and email, designed for easy sharing and grounded in verified sources and behavioral science.
Rather than focusing solely on factual correction, the pilot emphasized empathy (“This is such a scary thought, isn’t it?”), community collaboration, and availability of shareable resources.
The results were encouraging: 78% of respondents said the information provided to them was more culturally appropriate than what is available via other sources.
Another example: A 2021 study published in the journal Nature Climate Change finds that when Republicans were shown an online video campaign in which trusted messengers, such as evangelicals and retired military officials, delivered facts on climate science, they showed higher rates of belief that global warming is real and caused by human activity.
6. Bolster facts and data with personal stories.
Facts matter, but they don’t always persuade. Humans are wired for stories.
When addressing misinformation, don’t lead with statistics — lead with people, Haelle said. Show the impact of false claims through the experiences of affected individuals. Tap into emotions (pathos) and sources (ethos) to eventually make your logical point (logos).
“Ethos and pathos always trump logos in our brain,” Haelle said.
In short: make them feel, then help them understand.
“Storytelling is really powerful,” Haelle said. “That’s what we are. We’re storytellers … lean heavily on ethos and pathos to get to the logos.”
7. Provide on-ramps to complex topics for audiences.
Journalists may assume that their audience has a baseline knowledge about certain topics, but that’s not always the case. So, rather than diving straight into complex health topics, provide entry points, like simple explainers that answer questions like “What is measles?” or “How do vaccines work?” These on-ramps increase comprehension and reduce disengagement, Walsh of Trusting News said.
The on-ramps “can help get people to engage and actually consume the content, because a lot of times people won’t consume it if they have no idea what you’re talking about,” Walsh said. “Also, those explainers may help bring them to fully understand what the repercussions [of their belief] might be, because they may not be operating from the standpoint of even understanding that.”
And remember, every year brings a new wave of people who are encountering various health issues for the first time. Don’t assume they already know the basics. Explain them clearly and without judgment, Ernst said.
If you’re on a tight deadline or have space constraints, link to other sources that explain the basics.
“Maybe say, ‘If you want more information about why we know this and how this works, click here,’” Walsh said.
Haelle said she keeps an ongoing list of links to helpful explainers, so she can use them in her stories.
8. Be transparent about your reporting process.
Letting audiences see behind the curtain can build trust. Walsh pointed out that journalists should explain why they chose to cover a story, what sources they used and how they verified facts.
Being clear about what you know and what you’re still investigating not only shows integrity, but it also invites readers to view you as partners in the pursuit of truth, rather than distant authorities.
Today, even small changes in story structure can seem like bias to some readers. If you’re deliberately avoiding false balance or not quoting a politician verbatim, say why.
“Talk more about your reporting process,” Walsh said. “Be transparent about why you are doing a story.”
9. Choose quotes with strategic care.
Quoting someone as a way to present both sides of an issue can give harmful ideas undue credibility. Haelle advised selecting quotes that reveal rather than mask a speaker’s extremism or inaccuracies.
“You don’t have to quote every single thing they say,” Haelle said. “Choose your quotes carefully, and then think about what goes around those quotes. What you [use to] lead into that quote, and what’s the chaser?”
You can also use the “truth sandwich” method: Start with the truth. Indicate the falsehood. Return to the truth.
10. Ask your audience what they need, to show them you’re listening.
When you’re not sure how to cover health rumors and falsehoods in your community, start by asking your audience directly.
Walsh described using reader surveys, which can be created through something as simple as a Google Form, to learn what readers want, what they find confusing and how they prefer to engage.
Then, act on those answers.
“Take what you’re learning, analyze it, and then make sure to think, ‘How can we now implement this into our stories, into our beats, into the questions we are asking, into the type of stories we are telling?’” Walsh said. “Because what we’ve been doing is not going to work in the current situation we’re in.”
Let your audience know when you’re taking a different approach: Explain why you’re telling a story in a new way or covering an issue from a different angle.
That transparency can preempt assumptions of media bias and build trust.
11. Keep reporting on the topic.
As is the case with most topics, falsehoods on health topics aren’t solved with a single article.
People make sense of issues over time, through repeated exposure to reliable information across different formats, Friedhoff said.
Instead of thinking only about the initial piece, plan for continuity: follow up with updates, second-day stories, explainers, or even long-form features that deepen the original reporting.
Repurposing and resurfacing news stories, especially as conversations evolve, helps meet the way people consume information today.
It’s not just about filing one story, it’s about staying in the conversation, Walsh said.
12. Explain how science works, not just what it says.
Many people think of science as a fixed body of facts rather than what it is: a process of testing, revising and building knowledge over time.
Haelle said that this misunderstanding often leads people to distrust science when new findings replace old ones.
Instead of seeing change as a failure, audiences need help understanding that revision is how science proves itself.
Explain how scientific inquiry works: What a hypothesis is, how studies are tested, and why evolving conclusions reflect a system that corrects itself.
Just as we explain how journalism works, we should regularly walk readers through how science works, too, Haelle said. It’s not a flaw when research updates our understanding — it’s the process doing exactly what it’s meant to do.
Resources
- False Balance in the Media | Voices For Vaccines
- Misinformation, or miscommunication? (You Can Know Things Substack)
- Evidence-based reporting tools and tips for 2025 (SciLine)
- Why we fall for fake health information – and how it spreads faster than facts (The Conversation)
- How to report on public officials who spread misinformation (The Journalist’s Resource)
- The Debunking Handbook 2020
- First Draft is a nonprofit organization aiming to protect communities from harmful misinformation. Its Misinformation Monitor keeps track of the latest and most important misinformation narratives.
- Center for Countering Digital Hate, an international nonprofit organization with offices in London and Washington, D.C., seeks to disrupt online hate and misinformation. One of the center’s recent reports is “Pandemic Profiteers: The business of anti-vaxx.”
- Harvard Kennedy School’s Misinformation Review is a peer-reviewed publication with content produced by misinformation scientists and scholars and geared toward real-world implications.
Expert Commentary