Editor's note: In WellNest Watch, master's degree candidates in EMU's College of Health of Human Services explore news, research and standard practices in the field of health and wellness.
Understanding the difference between misinformation, disinformation and malinformation has become an essential life skill.
Information spreads faster than ever and in public health, what people believe doesn’t just shape opinions, it shapes behavior, trust and community safety.
When the information environment becomes messy, people get confused and that confusion can have serious consequences. Even though these terms sound similar and look similar on a digital feed, the intentions behind them are very different, and those intentions change how they influence people.
Misinformation is simply wrong information that someone shares because they think it’s right. There’s no hidden agenda, just a misunderstanding or a piece of content that feels trustworthy. A classic example is when someone reposts a home remedy or an outdated statistic. The person sharing it usually means well, but the impact can still be harmful.
During the early stages of COVID-19, plenty of people circulated posts about miracle cures or prevention tips that weren’t grounded in science. Most of them weren’t trying to fool anyone; they were trying to help. But the results still harmed public health efforts.
Disinformation is created with the intention to mislead.
Here, the goal is manipulation, stirring up doubt, anger or confusion on purpose. This type of content often uses emotional hooks, sensational claims or conspiracy framing to drive reactions. In public health, disinformation can weaken trust in vaccines, public agencies and even healthcare workers. When people are deliberately pushed toward harmful beliefs, the damage extends far beyond individual choices; it ripples into communities.
Malinformation is a bit different. It starts with something true, but that truth is shared in a way that’s misleading or harmful. It’s the twisting of information more than outright fabrication.
In health contexts, an example of malinformation might be emphasizing rare side effects without context or using partial data to make it seem like an intervention doesn’t work. Because it’s rooted in facts, malinformation often feels especially convincing, and that’s what makes it so tricky.
Why does all of this matter? Because our main sources of health information have shifted dramatically. Social media prioritizes whatever grabs attention, not necessarily what’s accurate. A dramatic claim will almost always outshine a careful public health update.
At the same time, communities are navigating very real histories of medical mistreatment, which means mistrust already exists and false information can easily take hold in that environment.
Addressing these challenges isn’t about calling people gullible or shutting them down. Most of the time, people share questionable content because they’re trying to look out for themselves or the people they care about. Building trust, listening openly and communicating respectfully go a lot further than arguing or rapid-fire factchecking someone into submission.
Public health professionals can help strengthen the information environment by focusing on a few key strategies:
- Use clear, plain language so people don’t get lost in jargon.
- Be honest when information evolves or uncertainty exists; transparency builds trust.
- Show up in the same spaces where rumors spread, such as community events, campuses,
clinics, online groups and even family chats. - Work with messengers people already trust, such as community leaders or peer educators.
- Encourage media literacy so people feel confident asking, “Where is this coming from?”
or “What’s the goal of this message?”
The goal isn’t to create a world where nobody falls for a misleading headline; that’s unrealistic. Instead, the goal is to help people develop the awareness and skills to pause, question and think critically before accepting or sharing something.
When we understand the differences between misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, we’re better equipped to navigate the online world and make choices that support our health and the health of our communities.
Contributors to the WellNest Watch health column: Kegan Tulloch and Ebrima Jobarteh, graduate assistants in the Office of Health Promotions; and Shafaat Ali Choyon and Nathaniel King, graduate hall directors in the Department of Residential Life. All four are master's degree candidates in the Public Health Program from the School of Public Health Promotion and Human Performance at Eastern Michigan University.
