Yves here. At the risk of force-fitting complex issues into a perhaps over-simplified frame, one can attribute knee-jerk doubts about humanitarian work to neoliberalism. First, neoliberals are opposed to charity and see it as legitimate at best to assist the deserving poor, as in those incapable of working. Second, neoliberals are opposed to community-building, since effective groups can make demand of the rich, like for better housing and pay. Third, as far as aid to foreign countries is concerned, neoliberals would seem to like best the kind that advances the patrons\u2019 economic or strategic interests\u2026..as in the sort that gives aid programs a bad name.<\/p>\n
By Chloe Bruce, a nonprofit communications specialist and project manager who has worked and volunteered with humanitarian organizations in the UK, Australia, Colombia, China, and Canada. She studied English and history at the University of Edinburgh before earning a master\u2019s degree in leadership and international development from King\u2019s College London. She also holds an advanced diploma in humanitarian education from the University of Teacher Education Zug. She is a contributor to the Observatory<\/a>. Produced for the Observatory<\/em><\/a> by the Independent Media Institute<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n In today\u2019s post-truth era<\/a>, where \u201cobjective truth\u201d has lost influence in the public sphere, it is becoming increasingly difficult for humanitarians, who seek to preserve human life, to carry out their work.<\/p>\n \u201cThe post-truth era has dramatic reper\u00adcussions on humanitarian work, not only because it affects NGOs\u2019 reputation, but also because it presents a distorted vision of the reality of people in need,\u201d says<\/a>Lubiana Gosp-Server, a humanitarian and development professional.<\/p>\n Humanitarians tackle hidden or poorly understood social issues and help people in difficult or extreme situations. All of this is threatened if people are no longer able to discern what is true or real.<\/p>\n Despite its contemporary prevalence in public discourse, fake news<\/a> is not new. Propaganda and rumors have always existed<\/a> and are something that humanitarians increasingly need to manage during the course of their duties, especially in the current \u201cinfoglut<\/a>\u201d environment of being bombarded with information from all sides, which exacerbates the problem.<\/p>\n High levels of propaganda and false information damage public trust and have led people to question whether humanitarians really have humanity\u2019s best interests at heart.<\/p>\n Humanitarian Work and Its Challenges<\/strong><\/p>\n The modern concept of humanitarianism was born from the founding of the Red Cross after the 1859 Battle of Solferino and the establishment of the First Geneva Convention<\/a>, which sought to limit harm to human beings, particularly in times of war. Humanitarians uphold a set of moral principles, and though they vary by organization, they usually include high standards of truth, honesty, and integrity.<\/p>\n \u201cAt 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,\u201d explains<\/a> the nonprofit Action Against Hunger.<\/p>\n Humanitarian organizations are not without their faults. They suffer from several issues, including a lack of accountability<\/a> to those accessing their services and a history of furthering Western imperialism. Humanitarian organizations, in many instances, are responsible for supporting the political or military agendas of hegemonic powers, which often fund their work.<\/p>\n \u201cNGOs 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,\u201d states<\/a> Jonathan Whittall, head of humanitarian analysis at M\u00e9decins Sans Fronti\u00e8res\/Doctors Without Borders (MSF).<\/p>\n Humanitarian aid has also been used as a tool to intervene in and impact a country\u2019s sovereignty, raising concerns about the intent behind the work. For instance, the UN Peacekeeping missions have often aligned<\/a> with the political interests of the US and other members of the Security Council.<\/p>\n Whittall says that it is essential for humanitarian organizations to stick to their core mission of representing the interests of the marginalized rather than furthering the \u201cinterests of the core state,\u201d and that they need to form alliances with social movements, grassroots organizations, etc., to be truly effective. This is necessary<\/a> for these organizations to \u201cregain their legitimacy and face with integrity the push-back from those in power who see the delivery of assistance as impinging on their political and military strategies.\u201d<\/p>\n Humanitarians also need to be aware of how false information (sometimes called misinformation) and propaganda (sometimes called disinformation) undermine their ability to do their job, worsen already complex crises, harm the people they are trying to help, and can even result in their death.<\/p>\n \u201cThe emergence of hybrid conflicts, mixing the spread of harmful information and cyber operations with kinetic operations, creates more suffering for affected populations. Harmful information\u2026 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,\u201d according<\/a> to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).<\/p>\n Humanitarians are uniquely positioned to help combat this problem by working with communities to address concerns both caused by and arising from the spread of false information.<\/p>\n How Is False Information Spreading and Why?<\/strong><\/p>\n Some researchers, like Zo\u00eb Adams and Magda Osman<\/a> et al.<\/a>, have argued that concerns about false information causing harmful behavior are \u201cillusory.\u201d \u201cThe assumption is that there is a direct causal link between the prevalence and consumption of misinformation and subsequent harmful behaviors. To date, however, this link has not been sufficiently demonstrated,\u201d states their 2023 study, published in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science. They point out that we have shifted from viewing the world via \u201cobjective facts\u201d to viewing it via \u201cintersubjectivity,\u201d which they define as \u201ca coordination effort by two or more people to interpret entities in the world through social interaction.\u201d The study adds that there is nothing inherently harmful about this shift and that there may be some benefits to democratizing concepts of truth.<\/p>\n However, there are many circumstances in which an increased amount of false information shared very rapidly has caused human suffering. \u201cSpreading harmful information\u2026 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. Incorrect information prevents communities experiencing humanitarian emergencies from accessing important and lifesaving services, and undermines the ability of humanitarian organizations to deliver and implement effective interventions,\u201d according<\/a> to the Lancet.<\/p>\n Understanding how false information and propaganda spread and how they influence people helps us determine what can be done about it. As Mark Thomas Kennedy<\/a>, from the Imperial College of London, argues, \u201cUnless you understand how people consume information and learn, you\u2019re not going to be able to have anything more than a conversation in which you\u2019re shouted down or dismissed.\u201d<\/p>\n According to a 2021 MIT study, most people are unaware<\/a> that they are sharing false information online. However, other studies have indicated that a small population seeks to deceive\u2014motivations for sharing disinformation<\/a> range from financial to ideological. Based on a 2022 survey conducted in the U.S., researchers found that 14 percent of people<\/a> were aware that the information they shared on social media was false. They also concluded that participants who \u201c[share] false political information online\u201d tend to be a specific type of person: they report having anti-social behavioral traits, such as a psychological need for chaos, a tendency toward psychopathy, sadism and paranoia; are more likely to have positive feelings for extremist groups like QAnon, the Proud Boys and white supremacists; and harbor desires to run for office and support political violence. Evidence<\/a> also suggests that foreign governments are responsible for spreading false information in attempts to influence<\/a> global affairs and shape political outcomes.<\/p>\n Another factor to consider in the spread of propaganda and false information online is technology itself. Social media<\/a> is the new epicenter of harmful information. Investigations by Amnesty International<\/a> found that X\u2019s \u201cFor You\u201d page is designed to promote content that provokes outrage, heated exchanges, and reactions\u2014otherwise known as \u201cengagement.\u201d Decisions<\/a> to allow influencers with a track record of sharing fake content with their followers on social media platforms to spread that information can be directly linked to an increase in fake online news.<\/p>\n The rapid development of large language models<\/a> (or LLMs), also known as AI, has led to a surge in computer-generated images. Now, stock image platforms like Adobe<\/a> are allowing computer-generated content to be purchased from their libraries without any warning about whether the image is real. Worryingly, AI is increasingly spreading false information<\/a> in its responses to the public\u2019s queries. As people shift from asking \u201cexperts\u201d for information, they have less control over the false information they are consuming. Not only do these models contain in-programmed biases<\/a>, but they are also \u201challucinating<\/a>\u201d inaccurate information. All of this has consequences for humanitarians and how they can perform their job effectively.<\/p>\n How False Information and Lack of Trust Are Impacting Humanitarian Work<\/strong><\/p>\n According to the Lancet<\/a>, \u201cComplex humanitarian settings have become fertile environments for spreading misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation.\u201d The situation is especially stressful for those witnessing humanitarian emergencies, as it is very challenging to distinguish between false and beneficial messages, given the sheer volume of information available on social media platforms.<\/p>\n The challenge of countering propaganda and false information becomes more difficult if people do not trust humanitarian organizations as reliable sources. \u201cUnfortunately, too many human-rights NGOs\u2014both large and small\u2014suffer from a crisis of credibility. Persistent questions about their sources of funding, political bias, and lack of due diligence undermine the reliability of the information they espouse,\u201d points out<\/a> an article in the National Interest.<\/p>\n To understand how propaganda and trust affect humanitarian work, we examine its effects across three key areas of humanitarian work: global health, war and conflict, and support for refugees and asylum seekers:<\/p>\n Global Health<\/strong><\/p>\n As writer and journalist Erica X Eisen<\/a> states in her 2021 essay, hesitancy and propaganda campaigns around vaccines are as old as the first vaccine. Earlier, false information casting doubt on vaccines was limited to one or two pamphlets; it can now be found in hundreds of posts, articles, and videos being consumed daily. The World Health Organization (WHO) has labeled<\/a> the rapid spread of misinformation as \u201cinfodemics\u201d and sees it as a direct threat to public health. \u201cFake news spreads faster and more easily than this virus and is just as dangerous,\u201d WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said<\/a> in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. In a review, the WHO found<\/a>that 51 percent of posts talking about vaccinations contained false information.<\/p>\n During a disease outbreak, combating vaccine hesitancy has become a key part of the humanitarian response, taking up time and resources. The British Red Cross launched a campaign<\/a> to dispel false information to support the COVID-19 vaccine rollout in the UK, and UNICEF released<\/a> a \u201cVaccine Misinformation Management Field Guide\u201d for its workers.<\/p>\n To a certain extent, this hesitancy is understandable for new vaccines, as well as in communities where vaccines are less common or where they\u2019ve led to avoidable negative experiences, for instance, due to unethical practices by international organizations. \u201cIn 2010, the Gates Foundation funded experimental malaria and meningitis vaccine trials across Africa and HPV vaccine programs in India. All of these programs resulted in numerous deaths and injuries, with accounts of forced vaccinations and uninformed consent,\u201d according<\/a> to an article by Sharmeen Ahmed in the Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law.<\/p>\n The lack of priority to human life over profits by pharma companies during the COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to vaccine hesitancy. As Gloria Giraldo of Latino Health Access pointed out<\/a> in 2021, the inequities in the distribution of vaccines globally could result in \u201cskepticism about the motives of vaccine makers and public health officials\u2026 especially among immigrants.\u201d<\/p>\n Humanitarian organizations\u2019 mistrust of local populations exacerbates the situation<\/a> further. During the Ebola outbreak in 2014 in West Africa, aid organizations stereotyped the locals as \u201cirrational, fearful, violent and primitive: as too ignorant to change.\u201d This resulted in the treatment intervention focusing on \u201ccentral, resource-intensive facilities, ignoring for months \u2018responses and strategies that engage with and rely on communities,\u2019\u201d stated<\/a> an ICRC blog.<\/p>\n Humanitarians need to be better equipped to navigate the issues of distrust and false information around public health and have been taking necessary measures to do so<\/a>. When vaccine hesitancy becomes too widespread, it becomes very difficult to address and interferes with the ability of humanitarians to preserve human life.<\/p>\n \u201cMeasles, whooping cough, and other vaccine-preventable diseases are on the rise around the world, and cuts to foreign aid, coupled with growing vaccine hesitancy, and persistent gaps in vaccine access are fueling outbreaks in poor and wealthy nations alike,\u201d states<\/a> the Council on Foreign Relations.<\/p>\n Results<\/a> from a randomized 2021 trial indicated that false information about COVID-19 vaccines \u201clowered the intent of recipients to vaccinate,\u201d according to the BMJ. Missing vaccinations directly causes<\/a> outbreaks of disease and preventable deaths. Previously controlled diseases like measles and meningitis are spreading in direct relation to an increase in the number of children missing their routine vaccines. These could lead to future epidemics. Resources used to tackle easily preventable diseases detract from the work needed to tackle other diseases or disasters.<\/p>\n In 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention \u201cto cast aside its long-held position that vaccines do not cause autism,\u201d stated<\/a>the Politico. These unfounded claims<\/a> amplify the spread of propaganda and are used to justify cuts<\/a> to funding for international organizations supporting vital vaccine drives. Communities in conflict<\/a>particularly rely on humanitarian organizations to deliver vaccines, and children are most vulnerable without proper vaccinations. These circumstances could lead to more children dying if humanitarian organizations have fewer resources and are overstretched trying to tackle vaccine hesitancy in countries where vaccines are available.<\/p>\n War and Conflict<\/strong><\/p>\n The development of fake images and videos is increasingly becoming a problem in conflict situations. Since the 1850s, photography has changed people\u2019s perceptions<\/a> of war and conflict by depicting the harsh realities faced by average soldiers and civilians. Since then, we\u2019ve regarded photographs and videos as factual, trustworthy evidence, especially for documenting human conflict and humanitarian work.<\/p>\n To a certain extent, the idea that photography and videos depict truth has always been an illusion. As soon as photography was invented, so was doctoring or staging photographs<\/a>. However, the ability to create fake images was reserved for people with specific skills and knowledge. Now, anyone with internet access can create a fake image and spread it online within minutes. Already, misleading AI depictions<\/a> of war zones are being created.<\/p>\n Images have a deep impact<\/a> on how we perceive truth. Humanitarians have relied heavily on powerful images<\/a> to communicate the necessity of their work and draw attention to human suffering. Conflict is inherently chaotic and secretive, and conveying the on-the-ground reality to those not experiencing it is difficult. Images, however, have proven useful in demonstrating the reality of conflict. There is a real risk that fake images can mislead people about the events taking place during conflicts and can reduce the power of visual media to change hearts and minds.<\/p>\n More tangibly, fake images or false reports about a conflict can make it more difficult for humanitarians to hold people accountable for breaking international humanitarian law (IHL). When an explosion<\/a> killed hundreds of people at the Al Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza in October 2023, a storm of fake images, misleading videos<\/a>, and unsubstantiated claims took over social media, making it very difficult for experts to understand who was accountable for attacking the hospital (a protected building under IHL). As a senior researcher at the University of Toronto\u2019s Citizen Lab, John Scott-Railton explained<\/a>, such a large volume of false information is a \u201cuniquely unhelpful\u201d environment for truth and accountability. Indeed, propaganda has played a huge role in conflicts. An environment where nothing can be trusted allows both sides to denounce all reporting and evidence of human rights abuses as \u201cfake.\u201d This is most evident in the campaign<\/a> to discredit journalists in Gaza, which is being used to justify killing them.<\/p>\n This compounds an alarming trend of weakening IHL and the values on which humanitarianism is founded. Erica Harper<\/a>, head of research and policy studies at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, explains that \u201cInternational humanitarian law stands at a crossroads\u2026 violations that were once considered shocking exceptions have become persistent, widespread, and too often tolerated.\u201d<\/p>\n In March 2025, 15 paramedics and first responders, including eight Palestinian Red Crescent paramedics, were killed by the Israeli military. After the attack, the Israeli military said that the incident was a result of \u201cprofessional failures,\u201d with the troops opening fire \u201con what they believed to be a \u2018tangible threat\u2019 amid what the military called an \u2018operational misunderstanding,\u2019\u201d according<\/a> to CNN. Similar claims have been made about hospitals being used to hide combatants in both the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Russia-Ukraine conflict<\/a>. This doesn\u2019t just harm humanitarians; it harms civilians. This narrative suggests that any civilian building used as shelter is now fair game for attack.<\/p>\n Another aspect harming humanitarian work in these situations is the lack of trust in these organizations. To be truly effective, nonprofits and international agencies need to build and maintain trust in communities. A 2025 Washington Post article<\/a> pointed to a situation where a mother of three in South Sudan refused to take airdropped food supplies that bore the flag of the country that had bombarded her village.<\/p>\n Refugees and Asylum Seekers<\/strong><\/p>\n Misunderstandings about the rights and circumstances of people who seek asylum in other countries have long been an issue for humanitarian organizations. Although a 2024 Ipsos survey<\/a> showed that global attitudes toward people seeking sanctuary remained broadly positive, sentiment was less positive in Western nations. In general, people confuse refugees (people fleeing persecution or danger) and migrants (people moving to a new country for familial or economic reasons). This environment of uncertainty is a breeding ground for propaganda. \u201cMigration is an ideal topic for those pushing lies and half-truths to spread confusion, fear, anger, or prejudice. It is a complex phenomenon where the facts can be difficult to ascertain or explain,\u201d wrote Alberto-Horst Neidhardt and Paul Butcher<\/a> for the Migration Policy Institute.<\/p>\n This becomes particularly problematic when this topic is prominently featured in public discourse and contains factually incorrect information. In 2024, a year of elections internationally, migration was a key issue for voters<\/a>. For a long time now, migration has been blamed for a decline in standards of living in the West, fueled by continuous propaganda. People seeking asylum (or migrants more generally) are often wrongly targeted for causing housing scarcity, overwhelming the health care system, and taking away jobs from citizens, despite evidence<\/a> to the contrary.<\/p>\n People tend to overestimate<\/a> the number of immigrants in their country. There are persistent claims in the UK<\/a>, Canada<\/a>, and other countries that asylum seekers or migrants receive substantial assistance from the government upon arrival, despite this not being true. During the 2024 U.S. election, stereotypical claims<\/a> that Haitian migrants in Ohio were eating people\u2019s pets became a key point of debate. Politicians increasingly focus on attacking migrants<\/a> and use terminology like \u201cillegal aliens\u201d to dehumanize people and stoke further confusion about their right to be in the country.<\/p>\n \u201cFrom Afghanistan to Ukraine and beyond, each development concerning global migrant flows or the management of cultural diversity can give rise to a new stream of disinformation, with significant consequences for policymaking, public discourse, and social relations. 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,\u201d explain<\/a> Horst Neidhardt and Butcher.<\/p>\n False claims about immigrants influence how people vote and encourage people to support politicians who offer \u201csolutions.\u201d For example, according to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees report, there is clear evidence<\/a> that \u201coffering safe and legal routes can help to reduce irregular migration and limit loss of life,\u201d by reducing the number of people crossing the English Channel by boat. The British government has, however, chosen a hardline approach to this social issue. Channel crossings result in<\/a> people\u2019s deaths, but politicians are more interested in appeasing voters, whose opinions are largely influenced by harmful information, than in offering genuine solutions.<\/p>\n Humanitarian schemes to provide support for refugees and asylum seekers are failing thanks to false information<\/a>. These campaigns focus our attention on attacking \u201cthe other\u201d rather than on addressing chronic societal issues. They create hostility in diverse communities and threaten people\u2019s rights to seek safety during dangerous situations.<\/p>\n \u201cHumanitarian organizations have struggled with how best to protect refugees and other vulnerable people from the harms caused by hate speech and false information,\u201d states<\/a> the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The organization found that the escalation of violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar resulted from social media platforms spreading disinformation and hate speech against them. Situations like this lead to questioning of \u201cvital protection information\u201d that humanitarians are required to share during such a crisis.<\/p>\n Failure by humanitarian organizations to meet migrants\u2019 needs is also eroding the trust people place in them. \u201c[T]he vast humanitarian needs of migrants in vulnerable situations are, for a variety of reasons, often not being fully met. These migrants also often have only a fragile trust in humanitarian organizations. \u2026 When organizations do not remain independent or are not perceived as such, this jeopardizes their ability to serve migrants in need. Protecting individuals\u2019 data, avoiding involvement with governments\u2019 implementation of immigration policies, and carefully considering whether to support activities such as returns has immediate implications for real or perceived independence and affects migrants\u2019 trust,\u201d stated<\/a> a Migration Policy Institute 2023 article.<\/p>\n Potential Solutions to the Misinformation Problem<\/strong><\/p>\n The UNICEF \u201cVaccine Misinformation Management Field Guide\u201d<\/a> starts by emphasizing that staff shouldn\u2019t be distracted by the falsehoods. It tells humanitarians on the ground to be aware that people are understandably distressed in times of crisis and encourages them to listen to and address genuine concerns. As the American Psychological Association<\/a> explains, people are more likely to believe misinformation when they are anxious since they appeal to emotions like fear and anger. They are looking for confirmation of what they already believe; they are putting their trust in the idea that comforts them<\/a>, which tells them they were right all along. This gets to the crux of solving the problem of propaganda: trust.<\/p>\n If the post-truth era reflects a shift in people\u2019s understanding of whom or what to trust, it should also reflect a shift in how we earn people\u2019s trust. Former president of the International Federation of the Red Cross, Francesco Rocca<\/a>, puts it succinctly when he said, \u201cWhen people don\u2019t trust us, then our ability to help them\u2014to do what we are supposed to do\u2014is eroded.\u201d<\/p>\n If people trust a person or an organization, they are more likely to listen to what they have to say versus the random information they read online. Only through building strong levels of trust can we encourage people to question their own beliefs and accept alternative viewpoints. Humanitarian organizations need to understand that they cannot expect trust; they have to earn it. We have seen how people are easily won over by words and images, even false ones. However, trust can also be easily lost when not accompanied by action.<\/p>\n Humanitarians should demonstrate solutions to people\u2019s problems and take action on their concerns. They should work harder to tackle poverty and inequality. Research has suggested<\/a> that low GDP levels correlate with a lack of trust. Every community has its own issues. Communities struggling to access basic amenities and consistently let down by government institutions are less likely to trust others.<\/p>\n Humanitarian organizations also have to ask who<\/em> should build this trust and deliver the information to communities. The international aid model or humanitarian system reflects a \u201ccolonial mindset<\/a>,\u201d says Kennedy Odede, head of Shining Hope for Communities that works in Kenyan slums, and ignores the \u201ccultural knowledge\u201d of grassroots organizations. \u201cThey believe they can just walk into a community and they\u2019ll solve the problem if they have enough money, but that\u2019s not how you create change.\u201d<\/p>\n Evidence shows<\/a> that people are more likely to trust members of their own in-groups. Efforts to build trust and tackle false information should therefore come from within the community. More responsibility and influence should be given to grassroots leaders and groups<\/a> to build trust, challenge misconceptions, deliver services, and communicate accurate information within communities.<\/p>\n \u201cUnderstanding where and how communities obtain their information will help\u2026 [humanitarians] identify who they trust and the main channels they use to communicate,\u201d states<\/a> Frontline Negotiations. This can help an individual or an organization develop a plan to counter propaganda before it becomes widespread.<\/p>\n Once trust is built, a clear strategy is required to ensure that effective communication addresses false information and challenges the bias and preconceived beliefs. Studies<\/a> have suggested that using a storytelling approach to present facts makes the information easier to digest and understand.<\/p>\n These tactics respond to false information, but is there a way to reduce it? The United Nations suggests<\/a> that states promote free and independent media rather than introducing curbs to reduce the spread of misinformation.<\/p>\n \u201cSome States have carried out digital and media literacy programs to enable more resilient and meaningful participation online. Such initiatives serve to promote critical thinking skills that empower people to identify, dispel and debunk disinformation. States should also invest in tools and mechanisms that support independent fact-checking with the participation of journalists and civil society,\u201d the organization adds<\/a>.<\/p>\n We also have to do more to hold people accountable for the harm their decision-making inflicts, whether those are politicians and military generals who intentionally use false information to manipulate, or tech companies that allow false and harmful content to proliferate in society.<\/p>\n While there is no definitive way to ensure that all information in the world is honest and true, humanitarians can do their bit by building trust within communities and responding to people\u2019s concerns to help counter propaganda and mitigate harm. This should be a top priority for humanitarian organizations, as it falls within their remit to preserve human life.<\/p>\n The ICRC has pointed to three ways<\/a> in which humanitarian organizations can combat misinformation: During a conflict, protecting those most affected by the misinformation should be the top priority. Secondly, the \u201cresilience and agency\u201d of the people and community should be strengthened. Thirdly, humanitarian organizations should ensure \u201cprincipled humanitarian action in the digital age\u201d both offline and online.<\/p>\n Combating false information requires coordinated efforts at all levels. At the global level, as rising conflicts make humanitarian work more important, what is needed is a collaboration platform rooted within the humanitarian architecture<\/a> to help frame a common agenda. This could include developing a joint advocacy position on online platforms, increasing collaboration, and pooling resources wherever necessary.<\/p>\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n