Full Fact submission to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Sub-committee on Online Harms and Disinformation’s Inquiry into misinformation and trusted voices

Introduction

  1. Full Fact welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s Inquiry into trusted sources of information. As fact checkers, we want to reduce the spread of information that can disrupt democracy or put people’s lives at risk. But we also want to ensure that the right information reaches the people who need it most: whether that is the public when trying to make a decision about their health or who to vote for, or policymakers looking to change things for the better in our society. Good information, used responsibly and communicated well, benefits public life and public debate. 
  2. In our experience all of the following have a key role to play in ensuring that good information reaches the public:

○        the government, public bodies and politicians;

○        the media;

○        academia, charities and think tanks;

○        the internet companies.

  1. As a result we think that, in its focus on National Academies, the focus of the Inquiry may be approaching things too narrowly and missing potentially important considerations when it comes to looking at the role of trusted sources of information in countering the spread of misinformation. Our submission therefore starts by setting out some points on the importance of good information, and the barriers to it, which we hope will be useful to the Committee’s Inquiry, before going on to address the more specific questions that the Inquiry is posing. In some cases those answers refer back to the opening points in our submission.

About Full Fact

  1. Full Fact fights bad information. We’re a team of independent fact checkers, technologists, researchers, and policy specialists who find, expose and counter the harm it does. 
  2. Bad information damages public debate, risks public health, and erodes public trust. So we tackle it in four ways. We check claims made by politicians, public institutions, in the media and online. We ask people to correct the record where possible to reduce the spread of specific claims. We campaign for system changes to help make bad information rarer and less harmful, and we advocate for high standards in public debate.
  3. Full Fact is a registered charity. We're funded by individual donations, charitable trusts, and by other funders. Details of our funding can be found on our website[1].

 

Summary

  1. Good information, from authoritative trusted sources, is vital for a variety of decision makers, including the public, journalists and policy makers, all of which rely on good information to make informed choices. 
  2. Our experience is that making good information available is not sufficient on its own:

●        Information gaps need to be identified and addressed so that the right information is collected and made available (the pandemic in particular highlighted deficiencies here).

●        Responsiveness is important, information needs to be available to those who need it, at the right time, and in a form that they will be able to use.

●        Information needs to be actively promoted or shared to reach those that would find it useful in their decision-making.

●        The accessibility of information, and where relevant supporting data, needs to be improved.

●        Information producers need to ensure that their information is communicated clearly and presented with sufficient context to mitigate the risks of it being misunderstood or misrepresented (this is particularly the case with the use of statistics, survey results etc.).

  1. A lack of good authoritative information on an issue can cause or exacerbate information vacuums, allowing the information environment to be quickly dominated by bad information. A lack of good information can also exacerbate the corruption of the information environment that can occur during moments of crisis such as a terror attack or pandemic.
  2. These challenges need a variety of responses, including a focus on the provision of good information. But doing this effectively needs collective effective responses. The Online Safety Bill should be amended to properly embed this into the new regulatory regime, and to provide a clear role for Ofcom in responding as the online safety regulator.
  3. Providing good information is key in ensuring that bad information is tackled in ways which are compatible with the protection of people’s freedom of expression. Action on bad information should begin with giving people information from non-partisan, authoritative sources that help them make up their own minds about what they are seeing. This principle should be more clearly reflected in the Online Safety Bill.
  4. Addressing bad information online needs to be accompanied by a range of other policy solutions: from meaningful transparency about disinformation on social media platforms; support for independent research; the publication of clear moderation policies on disinformation and misinformation, and increased media literacy. 
  5. People need to understand how and where to find good information, how they can interpret and understand it, and how it can best be distinguished from bad information. A step change is needed to improve the UK’s media literacy, particularly digital literacy. The Online Safety Bill should be amended to introduce a new duty on Ofcom, supported by a statutory strategy for delivery.
  6. When fact checking Full Fact uses a wide variety of sources to obtain information, depending on the nature and subject matter of the claim, including official governmental organisations and agencies and academic research. 
  7. We do not regularly use National Academies as key sources of information and, although we recognise the extremely valuable role that they play as promoters of science and engineering, we are not best placed to comment on what their future role should be in terms of becoming greater sources of information in their own right. Where we think they could make the most difference is by summarising complex evidence in contested areas, helping to connect those providing information to the public with those who have the right expertise, and supporting the training of researchers in communications and in tackling misinformation.
  8. Addressing gaps in the availability of good information needs a holistic response in which government and public bodies set the leading role and example. We would encourage the Committee to consider extending its focus to look at how the availability of good information can best be achieved.

The importance of good information from authoritative sources

  1. One of the best ways to protect against the harm bad information can cause is to ensure that good information reaches the right people at the right time, in the right way. Good information is essential to a democracy, essential to an effective government, and essential for informed public debate.
  2. Both the public and decision-makers rely on good information to make important choices. With access to good quality data, journalists can provide the public and policymakers with accurate insights into society and the world we live in. Such information is also essential if fact checkers are to ascertain if claims are accurate. It is also crucial for governments to better understand their own operations, the effectiveness of policies, the quality of public services and key facts about the country’s population and the economy.
  3. Unfortunately, it is all too common for the right data to be unavailable or inaccessible, or for the existing data to be unable to tell us what we want, or need, to know. We know that getting this right is not straightforward. In our 2020 report Fighting the causes and consequences of bad information[2] we describe ‘the unlikely journey of good information’: a lot of people, institutions and systems have to work well to ensure accurate, timely and dependable information. In contrast, only one link in the chain has to break for poorer quality information to reach those who need it.

 

The role of government

  1. The government (and its public bodies) in particular play a crucial role in collecting, producing and publishing huge amounts of both hard and soft data that is relied on by a wide variety of organisations and people. Unfortunately, the UK still lacks detailed information about some topics that are of great importance to society.  Attempts to address this such as through initiatives like the National Data Strategy,[3] are to be welcomed but more collective and focussed action is needed.
  2. In our 2021 report Fighting a pandemic needs good information[4], we set out some key learnings from our work over the years and over the pandemic, and made a set of recommendations for government for ensuring the better availability and accessibility of good information. The national academies could make a significant contribution to each of these:

(1)   A clear commitment to long-term funding should be made at the government’s next major fiscal event for: updating legacy IT; ensuring the security and resilience of the infrastructure on which data relies; ensuring data itself is fit for purpose; and for continued maintenance for new and existing systems.

(2)   A horizon-scanning function for statistics must be established and formally led by the UK Statistics Authority[5]. This should, on a rolling basis, anticipate the major societal questions the UK will face in the next five years, and the data and insights necessary to provide answers to those questions. The UK Statistics Authority should be provided with a multi-year budget at the next Comprehensive Spending Review to undertake this work, in addition to budget for core work and monitoring the social and economic effects of the pandemic.

(3)   A government-led programme should be established to identify data gaps in areas of significant societal importance and work to fill any that are identified. The government should consider creating a fund dedicated to researching and filling data gaps, and the UK Statistics Authority should engage with organisations to help them set out a plan to close identified gaps.

Improving data accessibility

  1. Even where good data exists, problems accessing it can instead force people to rely on out-of-date studies, or encourage them to fudge the numbers from other datasets.  It also prevents independent organisations scrutinising the basis of others’ assertions. Examples of barriers which can and should be addressed by information providers include:

○        Technical issues, for example providing data only in formats like PDF which makes detailed analysis unnecessarily difficult and time consuming. 

○        Information being trapped behind paywalls, which closes it off from members of the public as well as fact checkers.

○        Information producers (such as the press offices of government departments) being unable or unwilling to provide relevant supporting information. For example declining to publish relevant data sets alongside headline announcements.

○        Information producers taking too long to fill in blanks when asked for more information, meaning the news agenda moves on by the time it is made available.

The risks of information vacuums

  1. The online environment presents particular challenges when it comes to the absence of good information. Where there is a lack of quality information on topics of public concern, online discussion about these topics can be quickly dominated by speculation, low quality or partial information, and misinformation or disinformation.
  2. Our monitoring and fact checking often reveals information vacuums. In the pandemic, for example, the initial lack of information about the safety of vaccines for pregnant women and effects on fertility had lasting effects, with both women and vaccination centres receiving mixed messages, and pregnant women not being given second doses or thinking they need to start their course again[6] .
  3. Outside of Covid-19, we saw vacuums on issues such as fuel stocks, when low fuel levels led to panic buying. Taking an exceptional decision to publish the figures on, say, a daily basis, may have eased some of the panic; however the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) said that it would not be changing its monthly publication schedule[7]. The lack of government data may also have led to the media relying more heavily on reports from industry organisations warning about the number of petrol stations which were closed.
  4. In an information environment where harm can be caused by a lack of good information allowing bad information to spread unchallenged, it is critical that public authorities have the capability to proactively address information vacuums and to cooperate effectively in doing so. From our fact checking we see this need in a wide range of sectors from public health and food safety and from trading standards to public infrastructure.
  5. The need extends beyond public authorities, to industry and business (see for example 5G conspiracy theories where the telecoms industry could have worked with public authorities in ways that better addressed the information need[8]). We have also seen situations where the fast-moving consumer goods sector needed to be far more active in the information environment in relation to panic buying.

Vacuums in the online context

  1. The regulatory framework that emerges from the Online Safety Bill needs to ensure that information producers and authorities work rapidly before vacuums are filled by harmful information. A further challenge, particularly when it comes to information online are ‘engagement deficits’: where high quality information exists, but there is low engagement on social media.
  2. This low engagement on social media demonstrates that there is still a problem of supply; because high-quality information content fails to compete with other more emotive content, or because high-quality content is poorly promoted.  Tackling it should be an important part of measures to address information vacuums[9]. It is not enough for good information to be created: it must be shared to reach those that would find it useful in their decision-making.
  3. In our advocacy on the Online Safety Bill we have been calling for Ofcom to be given a clear role to monitor the online environment for situations where the dissemination of harmful misinformation and disinformation is being exacerbated by information vacuums or engagement deficits, and make public recommendations about how this can best be addressed.

Moments of crisis (‘information incidents’)

  1. The issues that can arise when there is a lack of authoritative information on a subject can become exacerbated in moments of crisis. This can arise - either acutely, such as during a terror attack, or over a longer period, as we have seen with with the pandemic.
  2. These periods of crisis can corrupt the information environment by increasing the complexity of accurate information, creating confusion or revealing information gaps - all of which can result in an increase in the volume of harmful misinformation and the speed at which it spreads, and create opportunities for malicious actors to spread disinformation. 
  3. We describe these moments of heightened vulnerability as ‘information incidents’. 
  4. Since 2020, Full Fact has been working with internet companies, civil society and governments to create a new shared model to fight crises of misinformation (the Framework for Information Incidents[10]) to help decision-makers understand, respond to and mitigate information crises in proportionate and effective ways.
  5. Such scenarios require a variety of responses by different actors, including a focus on the provision of good information. For example it could involve:

○        Contextualising information and providing alternative trustworthy sources of information (for example e.g. by applying warnings, pop-ups and labels on social media content)

○        Ensuring that accurate information is disseminated appropriately to public and affected groups (for example by actively promoting alternative coverage from trustworthy sources).

  1. This sort of thinking now needs embedding. The advent of a new regulatory regime governing online safety is the opportunity to do this. Unfortunately, we do not think it is effectively dealt with in the Online Safety Bill, which is focussed on the regulation of the day to day online environment. Full Fact believes that Ofcom, as an independent regulator, can and should play a role in collective effective responses to mitigating the risks of future information incidents. We would like to see the Bill provide for Ofcom being part of a system whereby emerging incidents can be publicly reported, and different actors such as fact checkers, news organisations, community representation groups and service providers can request that Ofcom bring together a response group to discuss severity and response.

Good information’s role in the protection of freedom of expression

  1. Responses to tackling bad information must be proportionate to ensure free speech is protected. Efforts to tackle bad information must not be at the expense of the other fundamentals within a democracy, including the right to freedom of opinion and of expression.
  2. Ensuring that users have access to good information is one of the ways that the risks of harm from misinformation and disinformation can be mitigated without having to rely on the restriction of what people say. As we have been saying in the context of the Online Safety Bill,[11] an open society should aim to inform people's decisions, not control them, and policies addressing harmful misinformation and disinformation should support the right to freedom of expression. We do not believe that an internet company, or anybody else, should take action just because somebody says something which isn’t true. Freedom of expression includes the freedom to be wrong.
  3. Action on bad information online should begin with giving users information from non-partisan, authoritative sources that helps them make up their own minds about whether to trust what they are seeing, in preference to more restrictive measures.
  4. As we set out in chapter 2 of our latest report Tackling online misinformation in an open society[12], and in our written evidence to the Online Safety Public Bill Committee[13], there are many ways to provide context, debunks and other techniques to provide good information in response to harmful misinformation.
  5. This is not to say that the provision of good information is enough on its own, it must be accompanied by a range of solutions to reduce the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation: from meaningful transparency about disinformation on social media platforms; support for independent research; the publication of clear moderation policies on disinformation and misinformation, and increased media literacy. 
  6. This needs to be supported by a clear and robust regulatory framework which has, more clearly at the core of its objectives, a focus on countering the harms arising from misinformation and disinformation while protecting freedom of expression.

Inquiry Questions

Q1: Which organisations are the most trusted sources of information in the UK?

  1. One of the keys to checking bad information is easy access to high-quality good information. When Full Fact checks claims we use a variety of different sources to obtain that information, depending on the nature and subject matter of the claim. 
  2. What sources are trusted and what sources are trustworthy are very different questions.
  3. Sources that are trusted tend to be familiar, conspicuously on your side, knowledgeable in their area, and speak in plain language. None of the national academies could be described that way. But those qualities help to explain why polling a few months before the 2016 referendum showed Martin Lewis, the Money Saving Expert as the most trusted person on Europe with the public.
  4. Scientists enjoy high headline levels of trust among the general public but this can give a false impression.
  5. Trust is always contextual. We can trust a source for one thing but not another. You might trust someone with your life when deciding whether to cross the road, but distrust the same person when deciding whether to have a vaccine.
  6. Trust often varies a lot by demographic. It is common to see specific demographics with very different levels of trust to the headline measures of trust in the general public.
  7. We recommend talking to Bobby Duffy of King’s College London, and the TrustGov project, for an evidence-based discussion of trusted information.

Q2: Where do you seek authoritative information to make up your mind about matters of national debate (such as vaccines and climate change)?

  1. Please see the answers to question 1. The sources that fact checkers will use will depend on the nature and subject matter and the information needed. At Full Fact we have more experience in checking information relating to vaccines than climate change. When we come to vaccines we will look primarily at official information from governmental organisations and agencies, as well high-quality academic research.  Decisions when it comes to seeking information from academic research are made on a case-by-case basis with the help of organisations like the Science Media Centre and Nature.
  2. We have written extensively about our observations and concerns about the reliability of good authoritative information relating to the pandemic, including information on vaccines. The pandemic in particular demonstrated just how important having the right information is to being able to anticipate, react and recover from crisis events, exposing fragmented or partial data sources and problems with data sharing.
  3. The UK’s response to the pandemic was hampered by long-standing failures in public data and communications systems. Years of neglect meant the country lacked good information when it mattered most. We wrote about this in detail in our 2021 report Fighting a pandemic needs good information[14] (see also paragraphs 71 to 75 below).
  4. Some (entirely non exhaustive) examples of the types of sources Full Fact will use when undertaking our fact checks are below:

Public statistics:

●        The ONS, Scottish Government and NISRA

●        Government departments and agencies

Polling

●        British Polling Council members (although in our experience such data still has to be examined by our fact checkers for issues such as question bias)

Scientific information

●        Science Media Centre (as a resource for understanding the limitations of scientific research and as a useful aggregator/link to academics)

●        Nature, and other established science journals

●        Cochrane reviews (systematic reviews of research in health care and health policy published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews)

●        Governmental agencies (for example, the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, the UK Health Security Agency)

●        National charities (although we approach information from these sources with an awareness of how they may try and present data to achieve their outcomes).             

Specialist subjects

●        A range of subject specific publications from the House of Commons/Lords library

●        A range of think tanks and research institutes such as:

○        the Institute for Fiscal Studies (economics)

○        the Institute for Government (constitution)

○        Health Foundation, Nuffield Trust, King’s Fund (health)

○        Oxford University’s Migration Observatory (immigration)

 

Q3: Are you able to “do your own research” on matters of national debate? 

  1. Full Fact’s role includes undertaking lots of secondary research to form well-evidenced assessments of matters of public debate. The public too has shown considerable appetite for using public statistics themselves to understand matters of public debate, for example during the pandemic.
  2. It is therefore important that producers of authoritative information try to ensure that information is accessible not just to experts, journalists and fact checkers but to others who are seeking out good information. But this comes with an important caveat that producers of authoritative information need to understand how that information can itself be misused or misrepresented, and how that can be mitigated. Academia is struggling to adapt to a world in which documents written for specialist audiences, such as pre-prints of research papers, are now accessible to the public and actively used in disinformation campaigns.
  3. For example, statistics – especially official statistics – are one of the most important sources of high-quality information. Statistics are at the heart of many of the claims that we fact check at Full Fact and are a vital component of how we hold people to account. However, extra context is sometimes necessary to help readers understand the statistics being published, and what they show, as well as any potential shortcomings in or limitations of the data in question. Statistics producers should also publish related spreadsheets alongside the report in which they include data so that it can be interrogated by others.
  4. Another risk that can arise with information people research on matters of national debate is the reliability of surveys as authoritative and representative. In particular organisations often use self selecting surveys to gather information on the views of a particular group of profession. In these situations the results of the survey may be affected by self-selection bias, when the people who choose to answer a survey are not a typical selection of that group of people more widely, and thus might express different opinions from the group as a whole. These surveys are then often picked up by media outlets who report the results uncritically and without drawing attention to the limitations of the data. We have written about self-selection bias, including in recent surveys of GPs[15], of teachers[16], and most recently pharmacists[17].  Organisations that conduct surveys need to consider both how their surveys are conducted and how the data from their surveys is presented and explained.
  5. Ensuring that sources of information provide their information in accessible and clear ways that mitigates risk of misrepresentation is only one side of the coin. It needs to be accompanied by a greater understanding and awareness within the public about how they can find the right information and ensure it is reliable. At Full Fact we have been calling for a greater focus on media literacy, particularly digital literacy. As a result we are particularly concerned at the lack of focus on media literacy in the Online Safety Bill and the fact that the Government pulled their proposals to update Ofcom’s media literacy duties for the digital age.
  6. Media and information literacy can strengthen the public’s defences against the harms of online misinformation and disinformation: it can make the difference between decisions based on sound evidence, and decisions based on poorly informed opinions that can harm personal health and wellbeing, social cohesion, and democracy.
  7. At present the UK has a vast literacy skills and knowledge gap that leaves a population and society at risk of harm in the digital era. Ofcom’s own research shows that a third of internet users were unaware of the potential for inaccurate or biased information online, and that 30% of internet users don’t know – or don’t think about – whether the information they find is truthful or not. That same research also showed that, although seven in ten (69%) adult internet users said they were confident in judging whether online content was true or false, most were actually unable to correctly evaluate the reasons that indicate whether a social media post is genuine.
  8. Full Fact believes that a new, stronger, media literacy duty should be reinstated to the Bill and then Ofcom required under the legislation to produce a statutory strategy for delivering on it. We would also like to see the regulator report on the progress Ofcom is making towards increasing the media literacy of the public in accordance with that duty.
  9. For our own part Full Fact recently produced a simple toolkit designed to help people with these sorts of challenges[18].

Q4: What role should the National Academies have in being a source of authoritative, trustworthy information?

  1. As we have set out above there are numerous potential sources who have a role to play in ensuring the availability of authoritative trustworthy information. As a result we think this inquiry’s focus on National Academies as a potential solution is at risk of being too narrow, and in practice we do not regularly use National Academies as key sources of information. Addressing gaps in the availability of such information needs a much more holistic response in which the government and public bodies set the leading role and example. We would encourage the Committee to consider extending its focus to look at how this can be best achieved.
  2. National academies are not producers of research and information themselves, nor are they sources of information used by the public on a relevant scale. There are three areas where we would expect that they can make the most difference.
  3. First, in providing authoritative evidence summaries in contested areas before they become the subject of widespread concern, where their reach into their expert community and their authoritative reputations can make a difference, and where complex evidence bases may be hard for non-specialists to access and assess. For example, when Full Fact first publicly warned about online misinformation relating to mobile phones and health, there were dangerous information vacuums that the academies could have helped to fill.
  4. Secondly, by convening the two sides of the equation, information providers, and information sources used by the public. In our work, finding the best researchers to talk to any area can be difficult.
  5. Thirdly, by supporting training for researchers in communications and in tackling misinformation. For example, Full Fact already contributes to an AHRC training programme for early career researchers run by the Institute for Government, and we believe that this kind of programme could be useful more widely.

Q5: Are National Academies prominent enough voices in engaging with the variety of debates on the internet?

  1. As we have set out above we do not tend to use National Academies themselves as key sources of information when we are undertaking our fact checks, and they are not realistically a significant direct source of information for the public. Although we recognise the extremely valuable role that they play as promoters of science and engineering, we are not well placed to comment on the sort of roles that the National Academies could in the future play as sources of information in their own right, or whether they are well placed to do so. It may in part depend on whether the National Academies themselves see this as a priority or indeed a role that they are in a position to fulfil alongside their other functions. We note for example that the Royal Society has undertaken useful work on science misinformation and how it can best be countered[19]. It may be that it is this sort of work, rather than as a primary provider of information on particular subjects, where the Royal Society feels it can be of most value in this area. It is incumbent on any institution - National Academies included - to assess their role in the modern information environment and decide what role they can play in tackling the spread of bad information. 
  2. National Academies sometimes advocate for a better information environment, and there is space for this to be a more active role. For example, the Royal Society of Edinburgh in its Post-Covid-19 Futures Commission report[20] recommended that a fully independent fact checking service be established in Scotland to review and challenge misinformation that could lead to societal harms. This has enabled Full Fact to be in dialogue with the RSE about how that could be taken forward.

Q6: Is the provision of authoritative information responsive enough to meet the challenge of misinformation that is spread on social media? 

  1. Provision of authoritative information is an important (but not the only) factor in tackling the spread of misinformation online.  In order for that to be effective, that information needs to be available to those who need it, at the right time, and in a form that they will be able to use.
  2. A lack of responsiveness to fast moving events is something that we have flagged concerns about previously. The UK’s response to the pandemic was hampered by long-standing failures in public data and communications systems. Years of neglect meant the country lacked good information when it mattered most.
  3. For example, the pandemic exposed a black hole in the UK’s information on social care, one that the government was already aware of. As the coronavirus spread through care homes, vital information that should have helped slow the virus was simply not available. Many other gaps were also identified, both in existing data such as about the criminal courts, and in data that should have been collected; for instance, in the surprising lack of data collected on supply and demand of personal protective equipment.
  4. More positive was the way that data producers adapted to the pandemic, quickly standing up new surveys, and adapting methods to ensure the continued collection of existing datasets. We also saw an increase in the use of real-time data and information taken from new or emerging sources.
  5. As we have set out above in response to Question 3 , the interpretation of available information is also crucial. Information can be manipulated, misused or misunderstood, particularly if poorly presented, or provided without relevant context or supporting information. The speed at which misinformation and disinformation spreads online means that it is often too late to rectify the situation once misused or misunderstood information is circulating.
  6. Good communication by authoritative sources, particular government and its public bodies, is essential, even more so during a crisis. The pandemic again highlighted a plethora of problems with the way information is often communicated. For example:

○        The initial narrative that the government was “following the science” risked oversimplifying the process, while the daily briefings often brought so much data they were impenetrable.

○        Government ministers and departments issued conflicting and even inaccurate advice.

○        Instances when ministers apparently attempted to paint a more positive picture by using misleading figures.

○        Responses to intermediaries like Full Fact were too often slow, unclear or inaccurate.

  1. Getting this right is difficult, particularly in a crisis situation, but it is incumbent on providers of information not just to provide the public with accurate information, but to ensure that any errors are quickly and transparently corrected. See also our points above in paragraphs 23 to 36 about the risks that come with information vacuums and information incidents and the need for collective and proactive responses to these challenges. Government and official bodies must lead but they cannot act alone.
  2. Similarly, the provision of good information is important, but it is not the whole solution even when done in a quick, responsive and accessible way. As we set out adove it needs to be part of a range of responses. It is a piece of the puzzle not the whole picture when it comes to providing solutions to what is a range of solvable problems around bad information.

 

Full Fact, September 2022

[1] Full Fact, Funding, accessed 10 February 2022, https://fullfact.org/about/funding/

[2] The Full Fact Report 2020, Fighting the causes and consequences of bad information https://fullfact.org/media/uploads/fullfactreport2020.pdf

[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-national-data-strategy/national-data-strategy

[4] The Full Fact Report 2021, Fighting a pandemic needs good information https://fullfact.org/about/policy/reports/full-fact-report-2021

[5] In their recent annual report on the state of the UK statistics system, the Office for Statistics Regulation also stated that they would like to see proactive horizon scanning for potential data gaps.  https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/publication/the-state-of-the-statistical-system-2021-22/pages/1/

 

[6] Full Fact, 8 December 2020, No evidence Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine affects women’s fertility, https://fullfact.org/health/vaccine-covid-fertility/; Full Fact 22 December 2020, There’s no evidence the Pfizer vaccine interferes with the placenta, https://fullfact.org/online/placenta-protein-vaccine/; Full Fact, 8 October 2021, What do we know about the AstraZeneca vaccine in pregnancy?, https://fullfact.org/pregnant-then-screwed/AZ-vaccine-pregnancy/; Full Fact, 25 August 2021, PHE says no need to restart vaccination course in pregnancy after second dose delay, https://fullfact.org/health/vaccine-second-dose/; Full Fact, 22 September 2021, Do pregnant women get Covid-19 booster vaccines?, https://fullfact.org/pregnant-then-screwed/boosters-in-pregnancy/; Full Fact, 29 October 2021, Why can you mix and match booster jabs in pregnancy?, https://fullfact.org/health/health-pregnant-then-screwed-booster-mix-and-match/

[7] Twitter user @EdConwaySky, 29 September 2021, https://twitter.com/EdConwaySky/status/1443261242651590663

[8] https://fullfact.org/online/5g-and-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-came/

[9] First Draft, 28 September 2020, Data deficits: why we need to monitor the demand and supply of information in real time, https://firstdraftnews.org/long-form-article/data-deficits/

[10] https://fullfact.org/about/policy/incidentframework/

[11] See Full Fact CEO Will Moy’s evidence to the Online Safety Public Bill Committee (Third sitting), 26 May 2022, Column 188.

[12] The Full Fact Report 2022, Tackling online misinformation in an open society https://fullfact.org/about/policy/reports/full-fact-report-2022/report/#prioritise-promoting-good-information-over-restricting-content

[13] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmpublic/OnlineSafetyBill/memo/OSB28.htm (see in particular paras 22-27).

[14] https://fullfact.org/about/policy/reports/full-fact-report-2021/

[15] https://fullfact.org/health/pulse-gp-retirement-survey/

[16] https://fullfact.org/education/teachers-depression-nasuwt/

[17] https://fullfact.org/health/pharmacist-patients-survey/

[18] https://fullfact.org/toolkit/

[19] https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/online-information-environment/

[20] Coming out of Covid-19: Reimagining Scotland https://www.rsecovidcommission.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/202110_Covid-Commission-Report_04-REPORT.pdf