(29) Module: Countering information incidents
By Onno Hansen-Staszyński | Last Updated: 21 November 2025
Below you’ll find the first module of the learning path ‘Organized countering of mis and disinformation’.
[screen 1]
Introduction
Countering mis and disinformation is about protecting liberal democracy — defending both the autonomy and agency of individuals, as well as the institutions and processes that support these.
Effective counteraction involves offering credible, pro-liberal democracy information alternatives to mis and disinformation and/or incapacitating mis and disinformation, across the six levels outlined in the learning path ‘Anatomy of mis and disinformation’.
[screen 2]
One method to protect liberal democracy is by disproving incorrect anti-liberal democratic claims using fact-checking which is defined as: “the use of an evidence-based method to verify the accuracy of claims made in the public sphere” (European Fact-Checking Standards Network/ EFCSN).
[screen 3]
Information incident level - dealing with statements (level 1)
Fact-checking on an information incident level means addressing individual, verifiable mis and disinformation statements that legitimize and empower anti-liberal democratic confirmation biases. It consists of the following steps: identifying, source checking, contextual analysis, comparing with existing knowledge, and logical evaluation.
[screen 4]
To be successful fact-checkers need to:
• Be transparent about their methods;
• Provide multiple sources underlying their conclusions so that others can replicate them;
• Have someone other than the author edit the fact check;
• And finally, “[p]resent findings in precise, factual and non-emotive language, while taking care not to overstate conclusions” (EFCSN).
[screen 5]
Fact-checking contends with confirmation biases and could thus benefit from added support. Authority figures can offer this, though their influence might be limited to certain groups. Social proof may also be effective: when ‘people like you’ support the conclusion, dissent may seem to carry a social cost.
[screen 6]
Fact-checking faces an asymmetric challenge: it is time-consuming and costly while generating false or misleading claims is quick and inexpensive. In the age of synthetic content, it’s impossible for fact-checkers to verify everything.
[screen 7]
Fact-checking suffers from other setbacks: it’s reactive, meaning it often cannot fully counteract the initial impact, and it often fails to reach the intended target groups. In addition, it does not effectively address more complex and value-based disinformation campaigns.
[screen 8]
Inspired by President Trump and Elon Musk, interventions such as fact-checking are heavily criticized as politically motivated and equalling censorship. According to the critics, fact-checking interferes with the democratic process of letting free speech play out freely with all of its underlying messy feelings, instincts, personal values, gut notions, common sense, and intuitions.
[screen 9]
In conclusion, fact-checking either serves as a moral duty, reserved for priority cases that justify the use of resources, or could function as part of a broader strategy that addresses challenges more comprehensively but it should avoid appearing biased or interfering with freedom of speech.
Subscribe now &
Get the latest updates
Subscribe