Send message to Author

Short abstract:

How do we draw the lines between what constitutes legitimate debate and misinformation? How ought this inform efforts to 'debunk' misinformation - particularly if 'experts' cannot agree on what counts as misinformation? We consider the surprisingly contested case study of misinformation in wildfire.

Long abstract:

While misinformation has always been present in wildfire, the scale and impact of recent fire seasons has created ripe conditions for rumour, conspiracy, and politically charged information. From 'space lasers' to 'equity and diversity causing conflagrations,' the spread of such misinformation has both undermined trust and been symptomatic of diminished trust between governments, fire managers, and communities. Yet, misinformation is in the eye of the beholder: what is ludicrous to one seems like an established truth to another, and what is a technical controversy to some is a case of malicious falsehoods to others.

In this presentation, we consider a recent academic paper - indeed, one of the only papers - on wildfire misinformation (Jones et al 2022), which takes a hardline stance on several open debates in fire management today. Instead of tackling prototypical examples of misinformation (such as allegations that certain fires were started as arson by political opponents), it instead alleges that holding certain views about how fires should - and should not be - managed is akin to misinformation. This offers an interesting case study on the boundaries of misinformation and conspiracy: How, exactly, do we draw the lines between what constitutes legitimate debate and what is misinformation, particularly in crisis situations? And, how ought this inform efforts to 'debunk' conspiracy theories - particularly if 'experts' cannot agree on what counts as misinformation in the first place?