Disinformation vs Misinformation: What’s the Difference?
The terms misinformation and disinformation appear frequently in public debate, often with little clarity about what separates them. The distinction matters because each represents a different type of risk and requires a different response. As information becomes a strategic domain in its own right, understanding intent behind false content has become as important as assessing its accuracy.
Misinformation refers to false information that spreads without deliberate intent to deceive. It is typically the result of misunderstanding, outdated material or incorrect claims that are shared because they appear plausible. During fast-moving crises, older images or inaccurate reports often circulate widely before verification can take place. Misinformation is not coordinated but can still influence public perception when repeated at scale. Its impact comes from volume and speed rather than design.Disinformation is false information created or distributed deliberately to mislead, shape perception or erode trust. It is used by state and non-state actors to influence debates, create confusion or destabilise institutions. Disinformation campaigns are structured and often resourced, ranging from simple narrative amplification to sophisticated techniques such as synthetic media and forged documents. Where misinformation is incidental, disinformation is intentional. It aims not simply to persuade but to disrupt the ability of societies to interpret events accurately.
The distinction between the two is significant for national security. Countering misinformation relies on public communication, education and rapid correction. Countering disinformation requires attribution, intelligence collection and strategic action to deter hostile actors. Treating all false content as hostile risks creating an environment of suspicion. Treating none of it seriously leaves space for deliberate manipulation. Identifying intent is central to determining the appropriate response.
Modern conflict highlights how both forms operate. In Ukraine, the Indo-Pacific and other contested regions, disinformation has been used to influence international opinion, undermine institutional trust and create uncertainty about events on the ground. Advances in synthetic media have accelerated this trend, allowing actors to fabricate evidence that appears credible. As information ecosystems become more complex, cognitive resilience becomes a core element of defence. It relies on improving the ability of individuals and institutions to evaluate sources, check context and understand motivation.
A practical approach to resilience includes authenticating data at the point of capture, strengthening verification processes and ensuring that decision-makers have access to reliable information even when digital environments are contested. These measures help protect the integrity of analysis and reduce the impact of both accidental error and deliberate manipulation. Sovereignty in this domain rests on the ability to maintain confidence in what is real and to understand when and why that confidence is being targeted.
False information will continue to circulate, whether through mistake or design. The responsibility for modern societies is to recognise the difference and respond proportionately. Misinformation is an error that spreads. Disinformation is a tool that exploits uncertainty. Both can influence outcomes, but only one is engineered to do so. Understanding that distinction is essential to protecting the clarity on which effective decision-making depends.