There are four ethical pillars all journalists are supposed to uphold when considering what and how they release their content. The main pillar of focus in today’s world is “Seek Truth and Report It.” The main reason this pillar is under scrutiny is due to the increasing presence of misinformation and disinformation in media and news today.
Misinformation is information that may have some basis of truth to it, but it’s widely and unknowingly wrong; similarly, disinformation is the idea that all of the information presented is knowingly incorrect.
It is worth making the distinction between journalism and the differences of social media. Journalists who follow this specific type of writing are governed by the ethical pillars of journalism. Additionally, these journalists’ entire livelihoods are built around following the pillars closely to maintain their professional status.
Where we begin to see the difference is when looking at social media, where posts and “news” come from people such as us. Social media relies on the general public. The issue is that the general public is not governed by the ethical pillars that journalists are, which allows them to say and post whatever they choose. With being allowed to post as they wish, misinformation becomes a major threat to the public that is heavily reliant on social media.
Some key examples of misinformation and its damages can be seen when looking into 2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic, which sparked a major influx of a group of people known as “antivaxxers.” These people oppose vaccinations for any type of disease, illness, or preventative measures. This large influx of antivaxxer groups was caused by grossly and negligently spread misinformation over the effects the vaccine had.
In a study done by the Mayo Clinic, some of the myths spread by the groups consisted of the COVID-19 vaccines causing cancer, heart problems such as clotting, as well as fertility issues and birth defects. This, however, was not the only misinformation being spread, as many antivaxxers spread myths around the transmission of COVID. With many saying it was spread through mobile networks, such as 5G tower signals or that the vaccines contained microchips that allowed for the government to track vaccinated citizens.
This raises issues on two fronts. The first front is the digital world we now live in. According to the Pew Research center, 53% of adults relied on social media to relay some form of news as of 2025. This excludes those who admitted to using social media for news, but do so much less frequently than others. With this many adults using social media, it sparks questions around the integrity of social media posts and whether posters should be held responsible for the safety of those during the COVID year.
The second front is the ethical problem of misinformation spreading. The Society of Professional Journalists urges reporters to seek truth and report it, act independently, be accountable and transparent, and minimize harm. When looking at most of the “evidence” against the vaccinations, it is clear they have very little backing in factual reasoning. Another issue is the easy access to media platforms that actively spread misinformation such as commonly used apps like Facebook, X, and Instagram.
In giving these people the platform to spread the information, the integrity of the outlet must then be questioned. The primary pillars that are insufficiently supported with the spreading of misinformation is seeking truth and reporting it while also minimizing harm. In the instance of the vaccination rumors, which were debunked by several sources such as the Mayo Clinic and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), it was apparent that the myths stated above were just that: myths.
The other pillar that crumbles in this instance, as well as several other science-related instances, is the pillar looking at minimizing harm. In the U.S. alone, over 1.2 million people died from the COVID-19 virus. While hard to calculate, it is not improbable to assume a large portion of those who died were against the vaccination or had been fed incorrect information that led to them to not accept the vaccine.
This brings to question whether social media outlets such as Facebook, Instagram, and X should be criticized for not upholding one of the most critical pillars of the code of ethics as human lives were actively being lost due to outrageously incorrect information being spread through their platforms.
In the end, it is imperative that as a reader you are either aware of or research the information presented to you. If enough people learn about the dangers of misinformation, a push for better regulation could be implemented and prevent further misinformation and danger.
Where does this leave us now? With how impactful and influential social media was during 2020 and COVID, a large population has begun to question the integrity of science. This is evident when looking at major budget cuts for government organizations such as the CDC and World Health Organization (WHO).
Additionally, in 2026 there is only a minor slowing of the antivaxxer agenda, but the lasting implications of those against vaccines may be around for many more years as new protests against vaccines may rise. It is even worth noting that some governmental officials are against vaccines, with the most prominent being the secretary for Human and Health Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
This however does not mean we should stop trusting science. Biology for instance has offered many different critical innovations that have helped human lives. One such advancement is the use of CRISPR, a genetic editing tool that saved a baby’s life from a rare disease. Little baby KJ Muldoon received life altering treatment for a rare urea cycle disease that would otherwise have made his adulthood very difficult.
This is a massive breakthrough, not only in the sciences, but for the public as it offers insight into the future of science and public relations. The troubling thought is what would have happened if KJ’s parents decided not to accept the treatment and trust science?
If KJ’s parents had not accepted the treatment, CRISPR would not be used in research for other genetic disorders such as sickle cell anemia or even beta-thalassemia. Without this advancement and hopeful leap that KJ’s parents took, scientists would still be struggling to keep up with treatment options for these other patients.
It isn’t just CRISPR that has led to major developments in science and biotechnology; there are plenty of other treatments being experimented with for diseases and disorders. This is why, despite the amount of misinformation presented to discredit science around COVID and its vaccinations, people should not lose faith in science.
Additionally, this is why people should rely more on professional journalists for their information rather than social media posts on Facebook or X. Journalists are expected to adhere to the code of ethics. While those social media posters may say what they want without the expectation of correctness.
