The House | The May elections face a threat from disinformation that can be generated more quickly than ever before

(amer ghazzal/Alamy)

3 min read4 min

Misinformation and disinformation were defining concerns for 2024’s bumper year of elections, where over half of the world’s population went to the polls. Indeed, a majority of UK voters claim to have encountered misinformation during the campaign.

The threat of false and misleading narratives are nothing new. What is different about the current environment is that the tools for the creation and spread of misinformation are cheaper, faster and more convincing than anything that has existed previously. And, as mis- and disinformation will tend to latch on to divisive or controversial issues, an election period – particularly one as hotly contested as the May polls are expected to be – is ripe for exploitation.

As part of our ongoing research into UK local news ecosystems, we found that the rate of misinformation in Gorton and Denton in the run up to the by-election was higher than we have observed in non-electoral areas. This included fake quotes attributed to Reform UK’s Matthew Goodwin, and claims that the Greens’ Hannah Spencer lived in a “massive house”, with AI generated images alongside this assertion. Concern over the extent of potential disinformation is such that the Electoral Commission has launched a pilot to detect deepfakes ahead of the May elections.

A good counterbalance to misinformation and disinformation is a well-informed and media literate electorate, supported by a healthy news and information ecosystem. Some of the crucial functions of journalism include keeping the public informed and holding figures in power to account – on a local level as well as a national one. However, news consumption in the UK has fallen dramatically – and local news outlets have been hit particularly hard. Fewer readers and financial pressures can lead to local media organisations folding, or at the very least cutting back on their staff, leaving a gap in reporting and giving space for misinformation to take a foothold that is difficult to shake or be corrected.

A good counterbalance to misinformation and disinformation is a well-informed and media literate electorate

Advertisement

Twisted quotes and doctored images not being called out by local media may not seem particularly problematic. After all, we’re well used to a certain amount of political spin: if it didn’t sway any votes, does it really matter? In the long term, the real world impact can be severe. This year’s Cambridge Disinformation Summit focused on “downstream harm”, making the case that disinformation narratives are often a precursor to harm and exploitation. This leaves us open to risks, including around electoral integrity. Sustained misinformation and disinformation can contribute to societal polarisation, social instability and lead to a breakdown of trust in institutions. Without local news systems to challenge misinformation, this could happen all the faster.

The question for policymakers, as we will lay out in our report in June, is what more can be done to buttress local journalism, rein in misinformation on social media platforms and improve the public’s resilience and critical thinking. 

We at the SMF will be publishing a report in June, sponsored by the BBC and drawing on our manual analysis of over 150,000 social media posts, case studies of how local misinformation incidents have been handled by local media and institutions, as well as monitoring of social media in local election hotspots in May.

Niamh O Regan is senior researcher at the Social Market Foundation