Why we should stop talking about “fake news”

The term “fake news” has taken root in public discourse, and this does more harm than good.

What is often referred to as “fake news” is actually one of two things: It can be actual news (that is, journalistically processed information about current events) that some people disagree with or do not want to believe. Or it can be various forms of incorrect, misleading, or harmful information. In this second category, we may be talking about disinformation (deliberate spread of false information to manipulate or harm), misinformation (false information shared in good faith), or malinformation (accurate information used in a way that misleads or causes other forms of harm).

Doubt as a weapon

When we lump all these concepts together under the umbrella term “fake news,” we lose the ability to distinguish between intention, method, and effect.

This confusion weakens both professional precision and our shared understanding of reality, turning information dissonance into a destabilising threat. We have recently seen how uncertainty can be a goal in itself, as in the discussions around the many drone observations over Norwegian territory. The intention here was not necessarily physical harm, but to sow doubt. Using terms like “fake news” can contribute to a similar form of doubt about whether an actual news story is true or not and whether given sources of information are reliable. We risk that suspicion and doubt spread to news from editor-controlled media, and such doubt can undermine trust—not only in the media but also in authorities and in each other.

Language shapes reality

The language we use affects how we perceive and handle societal challenges, and “fake news” is not a politically neutral term. When the term was named “Word of the Year” by The Language Council of Norway in 2017, it captured the spirit of the times. Its use had exploded in the wake of the U.S. presidential election in 2016, and the phrase appeared in thousands of Norwegian newspaper articles. I understand why. The battle over truth and trust in a digital public sphere was—and is—very real. But precisely because it spread so quickly and widely, we should question what it actually means and what it does to our understanding of news. I also find it particularly problematic that the term was popularised and further politicised by Donald Trump, basically to be used as a rhetorical weapon against journalism he simply did not like.

Just as social media are not media in the journalistic sense, “fake news” is not the same as disinformation. Therefore, it is unfortunate that these terms are used interchangeably. News, as in a report of recent events, is not true or false: news is news, whether we like them or not. When researchers struggle to agree on definitions, it is reasonable to assume that the terms are also unclear to others who do not work with the matter at hand on a daily basis. In academia, there is a tendency to move away from the term “fake news,” because the term itself is problematic, because it helps legitimize anti-democratic propaganda, or because it is too narrow and gives an oversimplified picture of a problem that is far more complex and multifaceted. From a research perspective, one can also imagine that vague terms used interchangeably make it harder to measure, analyse, and compare these phenomena over time and across contexts.

Discussing terminology is not only of academic or linguistic value. The practical consequences of using unclear terms are that it can lead to threat assessments and analyses that cannot be applied across sectors, and it can create poorer conditions for effective coordination and targeted measures.

Strategy requires precision

In 2024, the Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection (DSB) included source criticism in its emergency preparedness advice for the first time, with tips on how to “avoid being fooled by fake news.” In June 2025, the government presented its first national strategy against disinformation as part of efforts to strengthen Norway’s resilience. The strategy points out that disinformation can weaken public discourse and undermine trust in society. Measures to strengthen resilience must be knowledge-based, transparent, and respect freedom of expression.

The strategy has three main goals:

• To increase awareness and knowledge about disinformation among the population
• To improve the ability to detect and counter disinformation
• To strengthen cooperation between public, private, and civil actors nationally and internationally

This work is also linked to the Total Preparedness Report and the Norwegian government’s focus on digital security, where disinformation is highlighted as a threat to national security and stability. In the strategy against disinformation, the Norwegian Media Authority has received increased funding to strengthen the population’s critical media literacy, and the need for better regulation of technology platforms, that spread disinformation faster than editorial content is produced, is emphasized. All of this is important and will result in significant measures. However, the likelihood of such initiatives succeeding increases with a shared situational understanding. This must start with clarifying basic vocabulary.

A first step: clarifying terms

“Fake news” is a term without a fixed definition and is used to describe everything from satire and misinformation to targeted disinformation and journalism one dislikes. Such a loaded and imprecise term oversimplifies a complex problem and weakens our ability to address it. Precise terms lead to precise measures, and precise measures are our best starting point for building resilience and protecting democracy against the threat we currently face.

I would therefore like to see a public discussion, and a clarification of terms regarding hostile information activities and related phenomena such as misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation. I made an attempt myself in the introduction to this text. Stopping the use of the term “fake news” is a small step toward reducing conceptual confusion—not only because the term is used as a political weapon or because I believe we do not need it, but because it contributes to undermining the understanding of what news actually is.

• Stine Bergersen is a Senior Researcher at PRIO
• The topics of disinformation and 'fake news' were discussed at the recent PRIO-organized ‘2025 Oscarsborg Symposium on Nordic Security.’
• This Comment was first published in Norwegian by *Aftenposten: *'Falske nyheter' finnes ikke