Photo credit: phys.org
Australia is set to hold its federal election on 3 May, and as the campaign intensifies, the prevalence of misinformation is expected to escalate.
A significant portion of this misinformation is crafted with the intent to mislead the public. This misleading information is commonly referred to as “disinformation.” The ramifications of disinformation can be extensive and enduring, though perhaps not in the obvious ways one might assume.
Disinformation campaigns engage in the systematic effort to persuade the public of falsehoods. These operations are structurally akin to traditional marketing strategies.
Extensive research exists on conventional advertising, which highlights its effectiveness within populations—so much so that global advertising expenditures surpassed one trillion U.S. dollars in 2024. Disinformation campaigns are presumed to operate with similar efficacy.
However, proving this hypothesis poses ethical dilemmas, as no ethical review board would sanction the intentional distribution of false information to observe its effects on democratic processes.
Therefore, the studies assessing the impact of disinformation often rely on indirect correlation, which confines the scope of their conclusions. Existing evidence suggests that even minor shifts in public perception driven by disinformation could be sufficient to influence the outcome of closely contested elections.
Moreover, the mere possibility that a disinformation campaign could affect the results is sometimes enough to invalidate an election. A pertinent example of this occurred in 2024 during the Romanian presidential elections.
Such threats to democratic integrity underscore the concerns raised by the World Economic Forum in 2024, when it categorized misinformation and disinformation as the most pressing short-term global risk.
The greater dangers of disinformation
While minor political opinions may sway elections, the more significant risk lies in how misinformation can alter prevailing societal narratives. The narratives that shape our society are crucial and can have profound consequences.
For example, there is no scientific basis to link 5G towers with COVID-19, nor is there any substantive evidence that such towers pose any health risks whatsoever.
Nevertheless, an unfounded narrative suggesting harm from 5G towers has led to instances of vandalism that endangered lives.
Looking at another critical issue—vaccine hesitancy—the potential for harm escalates substantially. Data indicates that, from 30 May 2021 to 3 September 2022, at least 232,000 deaths in the U.S. were attributed to vaccine refusal related to COVID-19. This figure exceeds U.S. military casualties during multiple major conflicts, including World War I and the Vietnam War combined by over a factor of many.
These examples underscore how misinformation and disinformation can inflict severe damage by eroding public trust in scientific consensus and undermining foundational narratives.
Occasionally, these harmful narratives are propagated by corporations for financial gain. The strategies of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, which advised tobacco companies to create doubt rather than outright denial of the health risks associated with tobacco, exemplify this trend. By funding suspicious ‘scientific’ studies and launching large advertising campaigns to generate doubt, the tobacco industry delayed regulations, resulting in countless avoidable fatalities.
Inspired by this “playbook,” industries such as fossil fuels and chemicals have implemented similar disinformation tactics to undermine climate change science and downplay the environmental impacts of pesticides.
In politics, such denial of evidence is expected to feature prominently in the federal election campaigns in Australia, where factual discourse may take a backseat to party agendas.
The ongoing debates surrounding energy sources in Australia exemplify this concern. Some politicians promote nuclear power as a cost-effective alternative despite evidence from Australia’s national science agency, CSIRO, indicating that nuclear energy remains approximately 50% costlier than renewable options.
Similar trends are evident in the U.S., where renewed skepticism regarding the scientific foundations of vaccines has arisen under the current administration despite robust scientific evidence to the contrary.
In Australia, concerns amplify as the nation grapples with a measles outbreak linked to plummeting vaccination rates below the 95% threshold since the pandemic.
Questioning facts
A common tactic for fostering doubt about scientific research is through relentless public questioning. While scientific inquiry is essential, such questioning should be objective and empirical.
Repeated statements by authoritative figures can instill belief in a narrative—a phenomenon known as the illusory truth effect.
When scientific claims are persistently challenged without substantiated reasoning, public skepticism can grow, irrespective of the validity of the original claims.
The media often unwittingly contribute to this distortion by attempting to provide an equal platform for conflicting viewpoints, even when one side lacks credible evidence. Instances of inviting climate change skeptics for debates, for instance, has inadvertently cast doubt on the clear scientific consensus regarding climate change, a debate the scientific community continues to navigate.
As marketing psychology indicates, humans tend to accept messages they encounter frequently due to familiarity. This propensity underscores the peril of disinformation campaigns.
Throughout the impending federal election, Australians will be besieged by misinformation and disinformation, leading some to question science that stands in opposition to these narratives. This confusion can significantly alter beliefs and affect interpersonal dynamics.
Ultimately, one of the most profound consequences of disinformation in the forthcoming federal election may be a fractured and less rational Australia, shaped by the distorted information we consume.
Source
phys.org