Should We Improve The Definition of Disinformation?
Perhaps A More Precise Definition Helps Us Understand It
In 1983, a small Indian newspaper published a startling claim: AIDS was a biological weapon created by U.S. military scientists. This story, planted by KGB agents as Operation INFEKTION, spread globally over three years. The operation mixed fabricated research papers with real medical studies, created false experts, and planted stories strategically for social impact.
This was classic disinformation as defined by "false information spread deliberately to deceive." The definition, emerged due to the transliteration from the Cold War encounters with Soviet "dezinformatsiya" tactic. This captures operations like INFEKTION where the core information is simply false.
However, the landscape of disinformation has transformed dramatically since those Cold War days. Modern practitioners have developed far more sophisticated approaches that challenge our traditional understanding of this tactic. Consider the coverage of the 2019 Hong Kong protests by Chinese state media. Rather than fabricating events, they showed authentic footage of protesters damaging property. Similarly, when Russian state media reports on conflicts, they often use genuine videos of military equipment in civilian areas. Anti-vaccine groups frequently cite legitimate scientific papers in their arguments.
The current definition isn't wrong, but it is incomplete. It captures obvious cases where false information is spread, but misses the stated examples.
This gap between definition and reality matters. When we can't properly define disinformation, we can't effectively classify or counter it.
The Current Definition: A Starting Point
While older disinformation operations like Operation INFEKTION relied on spreading purely false information, today's practitioners have developed more sophisticated and subtle techniques.
Consider how Chinese state media covered the Hong Kong protests in 2019. They showed real footage of protesters breaking things. This really did happened, but they never showed police beating protesters or peaceful marches. Nor did they accurately represent the numbers of peaceful protests to violent incursions. By showing only one side, they pushed the story that Hong Kong needed strict control. No outright lies, just careful choices about what to show.
These examples show three big problems with our current definition:
It assumes fake information, but does not cover that the truth can and has been twisted
It looks at single lies instead of orchestrated campaigns
It misses how leaving things out can change the whole story
Is misses how there is always something to be gained when the narrative is influenced
The Revised Definition
Before proposing a new definition of disinformation, we must identify its fundamental elements. Through our previous examples, three key components consistently emerge:
Intentional manipulation of information (whether through falsification, selective presentation, or factual omission)
Strategic intent to deceive (this goes beyond simple lying, coordinated campaigns and sophisticated distribution methods)
Purpose of gaining advantage through that deception (this could be political power, military objectives, social control, or economic gain)
Understanding these elements helps us distinguish disinformation from related forms of information manipulation. Misinformation, while also involving false information, lacks the deliberate intent. It spreads when people share incorrect information by accident or without realizing it's false. Propaganda shares disinformation's goal of influence but can employ truthful methods to persuade. Regular advertising, though strategic in its communication, operates under legal requirements for truthful claims. Advertising aims to persuade through legitimate means rather than deception.
Here's my new definition: "Disinformation is the strategic manipulation of information with intent to deceive for advantage."
Let's break this down.
"Strategic manipulation of information" goes beyond creating false information. In traditional disinformation operations like Operation INFEKTION, this meant fabricating research papers and planting false stories. Modern campaigns may include the selection of which events to highlight while suppressing others. Both forms require careful control of context and timing. This often is coordinated across multiple information channels to create a convincing narrative.
"Intent to deceive" distinguishes disinformation from other forms of maliciously strategic communication. While many communications aim to influence behaviour or beliefs, disinformation specifically intends to mislead. This deception can take many forms: creating false narratives with fake evidence, manipulating context to change meaning, hiding true motivations behind messages, or concealing the real sources of information. What matters isn't the specific technique, but the deliberate intent to make people believe something that isn't true.
"For advantage" reveals the purposeful nature of disinformation. Every disinformation campaign serves specific goals. Political campaigns seek to sway public opinion or undermine opposition. Military operations create pretexts for action. Social campaigns work to undermine trust, while economic disinformation aims to manipulate markets. Understanding this advantage helps separate disinformation from simple misinformation or error.
Testing The New Definition
Operation INFEKTION:
Strategic manipulation: ✓ Created false research, planted stories strategically, coordinated global spread
Intent to deceive: ✓ Fabricated evidence and sources to mislead public
Purpose of gaining advantage: ✓ Undermined U.S. reputation, deflected from Soviet activities Classic disinformation that fits both old and new definitions
Hong Kong Protest Coverage:
Strategic manipulation: ✓ Selective use of true footage, coordinated omission of context
Intent to deceive: ✓ Created false narrative through selective presentation
Purpose of gaining advantage: ✓ Justified state intervention, shaped global opinion Modern disinformation that only fits our expanded definition
Standard Advertising:
Strategic manipulation: ✓ Presents selected product benefits
Intent to deceive: ✗ Legally required to maintain truthful claims
Purpose of gaining advantage: ✓ Clear commercial benefit
Public Health Campaigns:
Strategic manipulation: ✓ Strategically presents health information
Intent to deceive: ✗ Aims to inform accurately
Purpose of gaining advantage: ✓ Improves public health
This expanded definition succeeds where the original falls short. It captures both traditional disinformation like Operation INFEKTION and sophisticated modern events like the Hong Kong protest coverage. Most importantly, it gives us a framework to identify disinformation regardless of whether it uses false information or manipulated truth.
In The End
People might argue that this expanded definition becomes too broad. This new definition might potentially capture legitimate forms of information management like diplomatic communications or military operational security. Others might contend that by including "strategic manipulation" rather than focusing solely on false information, we risk labelling any selective presentation of facts as disinformation.
These are all valid concerns.
However, I believe the combination of all three elements - strategic manipulation, intent to deceive, and pursuit of advantage - provides sufficient specificity to distinguish disinformation from other forms of information control.
I invite you to consider these ideas, challenge them, and improve upon them. Perhaps you see gaps in this definition that I've missed. Or you have insights from your own experience with information manipulation. The challenge of understanding and countering disinformation belongs to all of us.
After all, as our understanding of disinformation evolves, so too must our definition of it.