Getting beyond the fact-check

In 2015, when I founded Lupa, Brazil’s first organization fully dedicated to combating disinformation, “fake news” was a niche term, Donald Trump was still a reality TV personality, and fact-checking was virtually unknown in Brazil. Back then, our mission was urgent and clear: uncover falsehoods, expose those responsible for it, and demand accountability. The work felt revolutionary — and gave me goosebumps.

Now, as Lupa approaches its 10th anniversary, I find myself reflecting on how much has changed — and how much hasn’t. And one harsh realization stands out: The phrase “combating disinformation,” once central to my team’s mission, has become so overused and vague that it’s lost much of its meaning.

When everything is labeled “fake news,” nothing truly is. Worse, when those responsible for spreading disinformation claim they’re fighting it too, the term becomes meaningless. Audiences, funders, and even practitioners are left confused, and the measurable progress we’ve sought remains elusive.

The global focus on disinformation is undeniable, and that’s a positive step. But the field has become overcrowded, with many players prioritizing performative actions over measurable results. After nearly a decade in this fight, we’re stuck in a cycle of rehashing old strategies and are in desperate need of a reset.

How many initiatives have you seen recently promoting prebunks, debunks, fact-checks, or explainers as the ultimate solutions to disinformation? How many media literacy workshops have claimed they could inoculate people against falsehoods? And how many super powerful AI tools? While these initiatives are valuable, they’re no longer innovative. We need to ask ourselves: What’s next?

And here’s another uncomfortable truth: In countries like Brazil and the United States, disinformation is no longer an emerging threat — it’s woven into the fabric of daily life. Unlike in 2015, people now recognize disinformation, understand its risks, and express frustration over its effects. Yet many have resigned themselves to its presence, treating it as an inescapable part of the information landscape.

And this resignation is alarming. It’s made the “fight against disinformation” feel like an empty promise — a phrase that inspires little action or change. So where do we go from here? How can the “fight against disinformation” evolve in 2025?

First, we need a cultural shift within the anti-disinformation community. It’s time to pause, reassess, and invest in deeper research. From a journalistic perspective, this means diving into the thousands of fact-checks, prebunks, debunks, and explainers we’ve already produced to extract actionable intelligence.

Second, we must listen to our audiences using techniques from other fields. Polling and research are essential to understanding the disinformation they encounter, the beliefs they hold, and the tools they need to navigate falsehoods — mostly independently.

Finally, we need to embrace behavioral science. Journalism’s fight against disinformation risks irrelevance if it fails to consider how the human mind processes and reacts to both falsehoods and facts. By understanding these cognitive dynamics, we can design strategies that truly resonate and drive change.

And against all odds, the prospect of incorporating these elements into Lupa’s work gives me back the goosebumps I thought I’d lost. It reminds me that innovation and adaptation are key to staying effective — and to reigniting the passion that first drove this critical work.

As we look to the future, we must challenge the status quo, push for smarter solutions, and rebuild the trust that disinformation has eroded. The fight isn’t over — it’s evolving. And with the right tools and mindset, we can ensure it remains impactful in 2025.