Misinformation environments and social risk
A communication perspective
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 24229872 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Philip Pond (0000-0002-5712-240X, The University of Melbourne) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-10-09 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Media International Australia (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1329-878X • E-ISSN: 2200-467X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1329878x261494372 |
| OpenAlex | W7221143045 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 50 |
Misinformation is widely recognised as a significant social risk, yet conceptual disagreement persists over how the problem should be defined, analysed and managed across disciplines. Within risk analysis, misinformation is typically approached as a problem of encoding: a product of poor practice in risk assessment or risk communication, addressed through stronger scientific fundamentals and greater transparency. This article argues that such an approach, while necessary, is insufficient. Drawing on communication and systems theory, it advances an alternative account in which misinformation is significantly a decoding phenomenon, produced between senders and receivers and situated within cultural and media environments that risk analysts have limited power to influence. The argument is explored through the case of Australia's renewable energy transition, focusing on the contested offshore wind sector, where growing community opposition has become entangled with misinformation about environmental and social risks. The article identifies several features of the Australian public sphere, including concentrated media ownership, uneven institutional trust, the legacy of strict Covid-19 restrictions and historic ties between fossil fuel interests and media ownership that make it particularly susceptible to misinformation. The analysis suggests that even sound, evidence-based risk assessments can be relabelled as misinformation within such environments. The article concludes by considering the implications of this systemic, environmental view of misinformation for risk analysis practice, arguing for closer integration between risk science and communication science.
Australia · community resistance · decoding · fossil fuel industry · institutional trust · media ownership · Misinformation · offshore wind energy · Public sphere · renewable energy transition · Risk assessment · Risk communication · Social risk · Systems theory · Climate Change Communication and Perception · Misinformation and Its Impacts · Risk Perception and Management
Liars know they are lying
(Why) Is Misinformation a Problem
Inequality in Australia
What's so bad about misinformation
Avoiding harm or creating benefit? How a risk focus sidelines social considerations in early decisions for Australian infrastructure projects
Conceptualizing and measuring socio-cultural values in marine and coastal environments
Complexity, Digital Media and Post Truth Politics
Transformations in the public sphere
Social identity in the energy transition
Beyond the discourse of denial
Coal and climate change
A risk-based method to prioritize cumulative impacts assessment on marine biodiversity and research policy for offshore wind farms in France
The online anti-public sphere
On how to characterize and confront misinformation in a risk context
A risk science perspective on the Covid-19 risk handling
People’s understanding of the concept of misinformation
Recentering power
Analyzing online public discourse in Australia
Misinformation’s missing human
A unified account of information, misinformation, and disinformation
Introduction
Political crisis and social trust
A relational theory of risk
Wellness communities and vaccine hesitancy
The Public Sphere
Misinformation on Misinformation
| Highly cited | No |
|---|