At the Met Office, we’re known for our trusted weather and climate intelligence in the UK and around the globe - but increasingly, we’re also becoming known for how we communicate it. In a world where misinformation and disinformation spread faster than ever, we’ve stepped up to meet the challenge head-on.
We publish regularly on this issue and even have a series of blog posts — including Behind the Headlines — dedicated to separating fact from fiction. It’s a continuously evolving area of expertise for our communications team and can often feel like playing whack-a-mole. The volume and speed of misleading content is relentless, and responding to it takes time, energy, and resources — all of which are precious.
So why do we do it?
Because trust matters. And because our customers and the public expect - and deserve - clarity and truth, especially when it comes to science that affects their lives. Public servants have a responsibility to uphold scientifically verified data — unbiased information based on the most rigorous processes.
Of course, healthy scepticism is part of public discourse. People have every right to question data. But with that comes a responsibility to represent it carefully. The science of misinformation shows how facts can be misused — accidentally or deliberately (malinformation) — through techniques captured in the acronym FLICC (Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry-picking, and Conspiracy theories).
Publicly elected officials and journalists have a duty to use data correctly. If they don’t, trust erodes — and when trust is gone, even the most vital messages risk being ignored. Recent Ofcom research highlighted that 43% of UK adults say they encounter misinformation or deep fakes, and, according to research by FGS, people want to be able to trust leaders and organisations without having to constantly verify what they’re told.
And the public is worried. 69% of people say they’re concerned that they or someone they know has been misled by false information online, according to FGS. That concern spans all sources — from newspapers to social media — showing that misinformation is a ubiquitous issue, not limited to one topic, platform or demographic. The Ofcom research also indicates that nine in ten of those who encounter misinformation are concerned about its societal impact
Yet despite this concern, only 33% of people report using fact-checking websites (source: FGS). Although there are green shoots as new investigative websites gain popularity and teach people how to spot fakes, fact check and find open sources of information.
So why not just ignore it and carry on?
There’s strong support for accountability - 79% of people in the FGS survey believe social media platforms should be held to the same standards as traditional publishers.
And because we can’t afford to just ignore the problem. As extreme weather events become more frequent, people need to trust the best of our knowledge. That means doing everything we can to maintain the 80%+ public trust we’ve earned — by being transparent about our work, upholding scientific integrity, and calling out misuse of data when we see it.
At the Met Office, we’re proud to be a place where science, technology and talent meet our purpose. Where AI, supercomputing and data science are used not just to innovate, but to help people make good decisions to stay and thrive. And this includes standing up for truth.
Dis-, mis- and mal-information – DMMI.
- Disinformation – verifiably false information that is shared with an intent to deceive and mislead.
- Misinformation - verifiably false information that is shared without the intent to mislead.
- Malinformation - deliberately misleads by twisting the meaning of truthful information.