Before presenting our toolkit for identifying misinformation, it is crucial to reflect on how individuals interact with information in a politically saturated, highly polarized environment. Words and images, as Victor Klemperer once observed, can act like “tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have little effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all” (Klemperer, 2000, pp. 15–16, qtd. in Saul, 2024, p. 186). In other words, exposure to misinformation and visual rhetoric can quietly shape attitudes and beliefs, often without conscious awareness.
“Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all”
Victor Klemperer, 2000
Why This Matters:
Unchecked, misinformation undermines public trust, weakens democratic debate, and intensifies polarization. It fuels division, corrodes institutional credibility, and can destabilize economies as demonstrated when false news of Ethereum’s founder’s death triggered a $4 billion market loss. Recognizing these dangers underscores the necessity of deliberate, critical engagement before information consumption.
Before Consumption:
By acknowledging cognitive vulnerabilities, actively seeking diverse interactions, inoculating oneself through preemptive education, and honing media literacy skills, individuals can better resist the corrosive effects of misinformation and contribute to a healthier information ecosystem.
Break out of Echo Chambers
First, we argue that it’s imperative to acknowledge echo chambers that restrict us. Robert Talisse argues that modern social environments, both digital and physical, are often “customized” so that people predominantly encounter others who share their views, especially on politically charged topics (Talisse, 2019, chap. 5). Recognizing this reality is a necessary first step.
Without acknowledging how political segregation influences perception, individuals are more susceptible to images, headlines, and narratives that vilify or dehumanize others, often without recognizing the manipulation at work.
Pursue Intergroup Contact
To mitigate the influence of these ideological echo chambers, Talisse suggests intentionally diversifying both one’s information sources and social circles (Talisse, 2019, chap. 4). Research consistently shows that engaging in face-to-face conversations with people who hold opposing political views reduces susceptibility to polarizing propaganda. Additionally, participating in non-political activities such as joining a bowling team, book club, etc, with politically diverse individuals can humanize those with differing perspectives and foster mutual understanding (Saul, 2024, p. 191).
Resistance: Cognitive Inoculation
Furthermore, cognitive inoculation offers a proactive strategy for resisting misinformation. Saul (2024) explains that this method involves exposing individuals to weakened forms of problematic speech or propaganda, alongside an explanation of the rhetorical techniques being used. Studies have shown this approach to be effective in countering various types of indoctrination, from Islamophobia to anti-vaccine conspiracies (Saul, 2024, p. 190).
Equipping people with knowledge about tactics like dog whistles and symbolic hate speech, using resources from organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League, is crucial in building resilience to manipulative media (Saul, 2024, pp. 190–191).
Are Americans Aware of Misinformation?
However, awareness isn’t always enough, and challenges may persist. While research indicates that most Americans are aware of the misinformation problem with 73% reporting frequent exposure to inaccurate election coverage in 2024 (Pew Research Center, 2024) several obstacles hinder effective navigation of the information landscape. Many Americans struggle to identify reliable sources and often overestimate their ability to recognize fake news (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2024). Moreover, deep-seated cognitive biases and tribal instincts make individuals gravitate toward information that confirms existing beliefs (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2024).
The rapid pace and overwhelming volume of information exacerbates these challenges. Faced with constant content, people may disengage from critical news or retreat into entertainment, further diminishing their capacity for discernment. Compounding this, widespread deficiencies in critical thinking and digital literacy mean many individuals lack the tools to meaningfully evaluate the information they consume, leaving them vulnerable to both subtle misinformation and overt propaganda (Pew Research Center, 2017).
During Consumption:
Propaganda rarely presents itself as a rational claim open to deliberation; instead, it bypasses critical thought and shapes public perception through emotional, aesthetic, and linguistic strategies. As José Medina explains, propaganda relies on “self-sealing mechanisms” that insulate its messages from rational scrutiny, preventing open questioning and promoting harmful assumptions through subtle framing choices (52). Combating propaganda demands epistemic responsibility, emotional regulation, critical engagement with language and imagery, and a collective commitment to sustaining a just and truthful public discourse.
Epistemic Activism
Resisting this influence requires what Medina terms “epistemic activism”, creating epistemic friction by actively interrogating not only what is said, but how it is constructed, why it is presented in a particular way, and what it presupposes about the world (74). A key strategy in this activism is recognizing deceptive language and framing, such as the racially coded media coverage during Hurricane Katrina, where a Black man was labeled a “looter” while a white couple was described as “finding food,” reinforcing racial stereotypes through selective terminology (Medina 22, 71).
Maria Paola Ferretti likewise stresses that democratic participation carries epistemic duties, requiring citizens to proportion beliefs to evidence and resist misinformation for the health of the public sphere (Ferretti 318). The first step in ensuring this is to identify misinformation, second to flag it, ultimately creating awareness of its existence.
Practice Empathy
Propaganda also works by eroding empathy, making targeted groups appear less human or less deserving of care, a tactic visible in historical lynching photography that centered white spectators while marginalizing Black victims to assert racial inferiority (58-59). Jason Stanley builds on this by distinguishing between at-issue content, which is openly debated, and not-at-issue content, which operates beneath the surface, shaping belief through unspoken assumptions (134). One way in which we can practice epistemic activism is by identifying ways in which we can practice empathy when we encountering its erosion. In turn this enables us to create shared practices with others, and ultimately highlight visibility on the issue at hand.
Beware of Ironic or Humorous Propaganda
Modern propaganda similarly exploits emotional manipulation, irony, and humor to short-circuit critical thinking and normalize bigotry, particularly in digital spaces. Whitney Phillips and Alice Marwick, as cited by Julia DeCook, document how alt-right communities use irony to deflect criticism while transmitting extremist views, masking harmful ideologies under the guise of entertainment (DeCook).
Practice Emotional Regulation
Psychological research further underscores how propaganda exploits identity and emotional vulnerabilities through what the Fitness-Validation Model identifies as the “5Ds” of persuasion: deceive, divert, disrupt, decoy, and disturb (Beckert et al.).
Diversify Media Sources
While structural factors like algorithms exacerbate this, Michel Croce and James Piazza argue that individual epistemic agency remains vital, emphasizing the need for citizens to diversify media sources and cultivate critical reasoning as a civic responsibility.
Civic Activism
Finally, as James Carey contends, resisting propaganda is not merely about distributing facts but fostering participatory civic practices that engage moral imagination and public conversation, suggesting a multi-layered strategy: cultivating individual epistemic virtues, promoting media literacy, developing aesthetic and cultural awareness, and supporting institutional reforms that enable open inquiry without controlling it (Carey). We can do this by, encouraging habits like critical thinking, intellectual humility, and open-mindedness. In addition we must teach others how to evaluate sources, identify bias, and understand media framing.
After Consumption:
Interactions with propaganda do not happen in a vacuum. Learning to play a positive role in public discourse creates a domino effect in our communities and relationships, promoting epistemic duties that prioritize factual claims.
Broaden Your Sources
An important step after consuming information is to actively work against the spread of misinformation. One way to do this is by diversifying your information diet. Relying solely on one platform, especially social media, risks exposure to a narrow set of stories that align with personal biases or algorithmic predictions. To counteract this, individuals should broaden their sources by consulting a variety of reputable outlets, including both mainstream and alternative media. This helps combat the “truth effect,” a phenomenon where repeated exposure to the same claims even if false, increases belief in them (Fazio et al., 2015). A diverse information diet also challenges confirmation bias by forcing engagement with perspectives that differ from one’s own and enhances skepticism toward unreliable networks.
Guide Others
Another key aspect of this duty involves helping others recognize misinformation. Often, falsehoods are spread through images, memes, or catchy headlines. When encountering these, it is more effective to expose and explain the distortion rather than simply correct it. Asking guiding questions that prompt others to see inconsistencies for themselves encourages critical thinking and deeper reflection.
Report Misinformation
Research further shows that prompts and nudges toward accuracy can substantially reduce the spread of misinformation. Studies by Pennycook et al. (2020) and Pennycook and Rand (2022) reveal that while most individuals can distinguish true from false content when asked directly, they often share inaccurate material for reasons like social validation or emotional impact. Implementing simple prompts that remind users to consider accuracy when engaging with content can meaningfully curb misinformation without limiting free expression.