Switched-on reading – decoding media in the Misinformation Age

Many Australians are sceptical about what they’re told. For example, in 2025 just 37% of Australians said they trusted the media — making it the most distrusted institution in the country.²

Still, myths stick. Influencers, viral headlines and social posts spread them faster than facts can keep up.  

For example, even the most logical and rational human on the planet may have that persistent niggle in the back of their head that mobile phones might cause cancer (nope). Others who are swayed more by headlines may live in fear that everything causes cancer.

Some of the more bizarre alleged ‘causes’ of cancer

Wearing a bra
Air travel
Mobile phones
Oxygen…
...and there are many more. 

Just because someone sounds confident doesn’t mean they’re informed.

Online, anyone can post advice or opinions, regardless of qualifications—or bias.

That compelling TikTok? It might be more style than substance. That authoritative-sounding blog? It might be driven by fear or ideology, not evidence.

That means slick websites or viral TikToks aren’t always reliable sources.

Similarly, being a parent gives you the right to make choices for your child—but it doesn’t suddenly make you an expert in chemical safety or a suitable advisor on chemical risk.

It’s important to think critically: Who is sharing this? What qualifies them? What might they be trying to sell or promote?

TikTok is fast, relatable and entertaining which is great for engagement, bad for nuance. And entertaining content often feels more credible due to the fluency effect—we trust what’s easy to digest.

Its algorithm feeds users more of what they already engage with, which can reinforce false beliefs and create echo chambers.

Influencers may seem like authorities, even without the credentials to back them up. And since content isn’t always fact-checked, misinformation can thrive, especially when users don’t seek out alternative sources of information.

We can also confuse ‘information’ with ‘informed’. And ‘access’ with ‘expertise’.

For example, in Edelman’s 2023 Trust and Health survey³, 1 in 3 respondents agreed that ‘the average person who has done their own research is just as knowledgeable on most health matters as doctors’. For ages 18-34, the proportion was closer to 1 in 2.

Oh dear…

Whether it’s claims like ‘if you can’t pronounce it, it’s toxic’ or ‘natural is always safer’ or simply ‘parabens are bad’, misinformation about chemicals thrives online.

Once a myth spreads, it’s tough to wind it back—even with solid science. Why? The answer lies in how we process information, who we trust and how fear can override facts. 

• Emotional hooks beat careful science
Fear grabs attention faster than nuance. Myths often use fear-based language or dramatic anecdotes that grab attention, while science relies on evidence, context and cautious language—which can seem less compelling. 

• Science is complex
Terms like ‘dose matters’ or ‘low risk’ are harder to explain than ‘this chemical is toxic’.

• Repetition works
The more you hear something, the more true it feels (even if it’s false). This is called the ‘illusory truth effect’.

• Trust issues
Some people distrust regulators ('authorities') or industry, opening the door to alternative voices—even unqualified ones.

• Belief systems
Some myths align with identity (e.g., ‘natural is better’). Challenging these myths can feel like challenging someone’s identity or lifestyle.

• Low scientific literacy
Many people aren’t taught to critically evaluate scientific claims or spot pseudoscience, making them more vulnerable to misleading statements that sound ‘science-y’.

Before trusting what you see on social media or in the news (or before you start throwing out your personal care and household products), ask yourself: 

Who’s behind the claim? – Is the author identified? Are they qualified and credible?

What’s their agenda? – Is someone trying to sell something? Push an ideology? Increase their followers? Simply entertain?

Is it backed by evidence? – Are there trustworthy sources? Valid and relevant scientific data? Or just opinion and cherry-picked data?

Is it emotionally charged? – Fear-based messaging often signals bias.

Is it too good (or bad) to be true? – Sensational claims deserve a fact-check!

Is the information up to date? – Outdated warnings can mislead.

Are other reliable sources saying the same? – Cross-check before you act.

Also be cautious of…

• phrases such as ‘associated with’ or ‘linked to’. For example, ‘chemicals associated with hormone disruption’ does not mean that a connection has been established between the chemicals and hormone disruption.

• The phrase 'found in’. Just because a substance is present, whether in a product or in the human body, doesn’t mean that it has an adverse effect. See Extra extra! Toxic chemicals found in…

• Statistics without context. For example, ‘doubles your risk’ sounds scary…unless the risk went from 1 in 10 million to 2 in 10 million in which case it is seriously misleading. 

• Studies on animals or isolated cells being used to predict effects in humans. Effects at high lab doses often don’t apply to real-world human exposure. The results need to be considered alongside related scientific evidence.