We live in a world where it’s getting harder to tell what’s real and what’s made up. This “post-truth” era, as some call it, is having a serious impact, especially on people dedicated to helping others – humanitarians. Imagine doctors, aid workers, and volunteers trying to assist communities in crisis, only to find their efforts undermined because people don’t believe what they’re saying. As Lubiana Gosp-Server, a humanitarian and development professional, puts it, this era not only tarnishes the reputation of aid organizations but also paints a skewed picture of the struggles faced by those in need. Humanitarians often dive into the messy, overlooked corners of society, tackling issues that are hard to understand. Their entire mission, which is rooted in reducing suffering and protecting human dignity, falls apart if people can no longer distinguish fact from fiction. While “fake news” might seem like a modern buzzword, the truth is, propaganda and rumors have always been around. But today, the sheer volume of informationbombarding us from all sides, a phenomenon sometimes called “infoglut,” makes the problem much worse. This constant barrage of false information chips away at public trust, leading people to question the very intentions of humanitarians. Do they really have humanity’s best interests at heart, or are there hidden agendas at play? This erosion of trust is a significant hurdle that aid workers must now navigate, on top of the already immense challenges they face.
The very concept of humanitarianism, born from the aftermath of the 1859 Battle of Solferino and the establishment of the First Geneva Convention, is built on a foundation of moral principles. These principles, though varying slightly between organizations, consistently emphasize truth, honesty, and integrity. As Action Against Hunger beautifully explains, “At its core, a humanitarian is a person dedicated to reducing suffering and protecting human dignity. Whether in war zones, after natural disasters, or during health emergencies, humanitarians put people first.” This is the ideal, the vision of what a humanitarian should be. However, even these noble organizations are not perfect. They grapple with issues like a lack of accountability to the very people they serve and, historically, have even been accused of furthering Western imperialism. Jonathan Whittall, head of humanitarian analysis at Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF), highlights this stark reality, stating, “NGOs have in many cases become extensions of Western foreign policy. This has most obviously been seen in contexts such as Afghanistan where many NGOs supported and formed an integral part of U.S.-led stabilization activities following the U.S. invasion in 2001.” This unfortunate reality, where humanitarian aid can be seen as a tool to influence a country’s sovereignty, inevitably sparks doubt about the true intentions behind their work. Whittall strongly believes that for humanitarian organizations to be truly effective and regain their legitimacy, they must refocus on serving the marginalized, building alliances with grassroots movements, and resisting the pressure to align with geopolitical agendas. He argues that this is crucial for them to withstand the pushback from powerful entities who view assistance as interfering with their political and military strategies. Beyond these systemic issues, humanitarians are also increasingly confronted with the direct impact of false information, whether it’s unintentional misinformation or deliberate disinformation. This not only impairs their ability to do their job but also escalates already difficult situations, harms the very people they’re trying to help, and in extreme cases, can even put their lives in danger. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warns that “The emergence of hybrid conflicts, mixing the spread of harmful information and cyber operations with kinetic operations, creates more suffering for affected populations. Harmful information… hinders the work of humanitarian organizations by calling into question their mandates and intentions, undermining their integrity, and making them and their staff a target of online and offline harassment and violence.” Despite these daunting challenges, humanitarians are uniquely positioned to work with communities and address the anxieties and problems that false information creates, turning a potential weakness into an opportunity for resilience.
So, how exactly does this false information spread, and why do people fall for it? Some researchers, like Zoë Adams and Magda Osman, even suggest that our worries about false information causing harm might be “illusory,” arguing that a direct causal link hasn’t been definitively proven. They propose that we’ve moved from a world of “objective facts” to one of “intersubjectivity,” where we collectively interpret reality through social interaction. They surprisingly suggest this shift isn’t inherently bad and might even democratize the concept of truth. However, while their perspective offers an interesting angle, countless real-world scenarios demonstrate the undeniable suffering caused by the rapid spread of false information. The Lancet, for instance, warns that “Spreading harmful information… could exacerbate the suffering of the most vulnerable people, and humanitarian operations. Harmful information is reported to induce psychological and social harm in both communities affected by conflict and among people serving those communities.” It prevents communities from accessing crucial services and cripples the ability of aid organizations to deliver effective interventions. To truly combat this, we need to understand how false information works. As Mark Thomas Kennedy of the Imperial College of London wisely states, “Unless you understand how people consume information and learn, you’re not going to be able to have anything more than a conversation in which you’re shouted down or dismissed.” Interestingly, many people aren’t even aware they’re sharing false information online, according to a 2021 MIT study. Yet, other studies reveal a darker side: a small percentage of individuals deliberately spread disinformation for various reasons, from financial gain to ideological motives. A 2022 US survey even found that 14% of people knowingly shared false information on social media. These individuals often exhibit antisocial traits like a need for chaos, psychopathy, sadism, and paranoia, and tend to admire extremist groups. Moreover, foreign governments are increasingly using disinformation to manipulate global affairs. Technology itself is also a major accelerant. Social media platforms, with their algorithms designed to maximize “engagement” through outrage and heated exchanges, have become hotbeds for harmful content. The rise of AI and large language models, generating convincing fake images and even “hallucinating” inaccurate information, further blurs the lines of reality. This technological onslaught has severe consequences for humanitarians, making their work of discerning truth and effective action increasingly complex.
The consequences of this erosion of trust and the proliferation of false information are deeply felt across various critical areas of humanitarian work. In global health, the impact is particularly stark. The world witnessed vaccine hesitancy during the COVID-19 pandemic, but as writer and journalist Erica X Eisen points out, propaganda campaigns against vaccines are as old as vaccines themselves. What used to be limited to a few pamphlets now spreads like wildfire across thousands of online posts and videos. The World Health Organization (WHO) has even coined the term “infodemics” to describe this rapid spread of misinformation, recognizing it as a direct threat to public health. WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus famously stated in 2020, “Fake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus and is just as dangerous.” This necessitates humanitarians diverting precious time and resources to counter these falsehoods, as seen in campaigns by the British Red Cross and UNICEF’s “Vaccine Misinformation Management Field Guide.” This hesitancy, however, isn’t always irrational. Past instances of unethical practices by international organizations, such as unconsented vaccine trials, have understandably sown seeds of distrust. The prioritization of profit over human life by pharmaceutical companies during the pandemic also fueled skepticism. Gloria Giraldo of Latino Health Access observed that vaccine distribution inequities could lead to “skepticism about the motives of vaccine makers and public health officials… especially among immigrants.” Furthermore, the tendency of aid organizations to stereotype local populations as “irrational” during crises, as highlighted by an ICRC blog regarding the 2014 Ebola outbreak, only deepens this mistrust. The tragic outcome: preventable diseases like measles and whooping cough are on the rise globally due to declining vaccination rates, stemming from widespread misinformation and vaccine hesitancy. Unfounded claims, like those made by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. questioning vaccines’ safety, further fuel this fire, leading to funding cuts for vital vaccine drives and putting vulnerable children at greater risk, especially in conflict zones.
In war and conflict zones, the rise of fake images and videos poses a direct threat to transparency and accountability. For decades, photographs and videos were seen as irrefutable evidence, humanizing the brutal realities of war. However, the ease with which anyone can now create deceptive visuals online, often with AI-generated content, undermines this trust. As John Scott-Railton, a senior researcher at the University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab, explained regarding the October 2023 Gaza hospital explosion, the overwhelming volume of false information creates a “uniquely unhelpful” environment for truth and accountability. This allows all parties to dismiss valid accusations of human rights abuses as “fake news,” further eroding international humanitarian law. This is a terrifying trend, as Erica Harper, head of research and policy studies at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, notes that “violations that were once considered shocking exceptions have become persistent, widespread, and too often tolerated.” The tragic killing of paramedics and first responders by the Israeli military in March 2025, amidst claims of “operational misunderstanding,” exemplifies how narratives of “hospitals being used to hide combatants” can dehumanize and justify attacks on protected civilian targets, harming both aid workers and the very people they serve. Adding to this, the lack of trust in humanitarian organizations themselves hinders their effectiveness. A 2025 Washington Post article reported a heartbreaking instance where a South Sudanese mother refused aid from an organization whose flag belonged to the very country that had bombarded her village, illustrating the profound impact of past grievances on trust. This deep-seated distrust means aid doesn’t always reach those who need it most, creating a vicious cycle of disbelief and continued suffering.
Finally, when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, false information distorts public perception and fuels hostility. Despite a 2024 Ipsos survey showing generally positive global attitudes towards those fleeing persecution, negative sentiment persists in Western nations, often fueled by a misunderstanding of the differences between refugees and migrants. As Alberto-Horst Neidhardt and Paul Butcher of the Migration Policy Institute explain, “Migration is an ideal topic for those pushing lies and half-truths to spread confusion, fear, anger, or prejudice.” In election years, migration becomes a hot-button issue, with false claims of migrants causing housing shortages, overwhelming healthcare, and stealing jobs, despite evidence to the contrary. Politicians often exploit these anxieties, using dehumanizing language like “illegal aliens” to stoke fear and justify harsh policies. Horst Neidhardt and Butcher further elaborate that “Conspiracy theories are also frequently used as a rhetorical tool by far-right movements and nativist politicians to advocate for hardline anti-immigration policies and mobilize their voters.” This barrage of false information directly impacts policy, leading to approaches that prioritize political appeasement over genuine humanitarian solutions, even when such policies, like deterring safe routes for cross-channel migrants, demonstrably lead to loss of life. These campaigns effectively redirect public anger towards “the other,” rather than addressing underlying societal issues, and threaten the fundamental right to seek safety. For organizations like UNHCR, protecting vulnerable people from hate speech and disinformation is a monumental challenge, as exemplified by the violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar, exacerbated by social media’s spread of hateful narratives. Coupled with the inability of humanitarian organizations to fully meet migrants’ needs, often due to their perceived lack of independence from governmental agendas, trust further erodes. This fragile trust, as a 2023 Migration Policy Institute article highlights, compromises their ability to serve, underscoring the critical need for perceived and actual independence.
So, what can be done to counter this pervasive problem? The UNICEF “Vaccine Misinformation Management Field Guide” offers a crucial starting point: don’t get sidetracked by falsehoods. Instead, humanitarians are encouraged to acknowledge the understandable distress of people in crisis and, most importantly, to listen to and address their genuine concerns. As the American Psychological Association explains, anxiety makes people more susceptible to misinformation because it appeals to emotions like fear and anger, offering comfort and validating existing beliefs. The core of the solution, then, lies in trust. Francesco Rocca, former president of the International Federation of the Red Cross, puts it simply: “When people don’t trust us, then our ability to help them—to do what we are supposed to do—is eroded.” If people trust an organization, they are far more likely to consider its message over random online information. This means humanitarian organizations cannot expect trust; they must earn it. While words and images can easily sway people, genuine trust is built through consistent action and demonstrable solutions to people’s problems, particularly focusing on poverty and inequality. Research suggests a correlation between low GDP and lack of trust, implying that communities struggling with basic needs and failed by institutions are naturally less trusting. This raises a critical question: who should build this trust? Kennedy Odede, head of Shining Hope for Communities, argues that the international aid model often reflects a “colonial mindset,” overlooking the “cultural knowledge” of local, grassroots organizations. He emphasizes that “They believe they can just walk into a community and they’ll solve the problem if they have enough money, but that’s not how you create change.” Evidence overwhelmingly shows that people trust those within their own communities more. Therefore, empowering grassroots leaders and groups to build trust, challenge misconceptions, deliver services, and communicate accurate information from within is crucial. Frontline Negotiations suggests that “Understanding where and how communities obtain their information will help… [humanitarians] identify who they trust and the main channels they use to communicate.” Once trust is established, a clear communication strategy is needed to address false information and challenge biases, often through storytelling, which makes facts more digestible. Beyond reactive measures, proactive solutions are also vital. The United Nations advocates for promoting free and independent media and implementing digital and media literacy programs to foster critical thinking skills. Finally, accountability is paramount. Holding politicians, military leaders, and tech companies responsible for manipulating information or allowing harmful content to proliferate is essential. While eliminating all dishonest information is impossible, humanitarians can significantly mitigate its harm by actively building trust within communities and addressing their concerns. This is not merely a strategy but a fundamental responsibility within their mission to preserve human life. The ICRC outlines three key approaches: prioritize protecting those affected by misinformation in conflict, strengthen community resilience and agency, and ensure “principled humanitarian action in the digital age” both online and offline. Ultimately, combating false information demands a coordinated effort at all levels, with a unified roadmap for collaboration and resource pooling across the humanitarian sector to effectively navigate this complex and ever-evolving challenge.