A “disorder that exacerbates all other crises” or “a word we use to shut you up”? A critical policy analysis of NGOs discourses on COVID-19 misinformation

Drawing from Carol Bacchi's "What is the problem represented to be?" framework, we analysed discourses within documents from five NGOs that have influenced the debate around “COVID-19 misinformation”. Through Google Scholar, we identified documents published between 2020 and 2024, selecting 29 reports by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, First Draft, Meedan, Public Good Projects, and the EU Disinfo Lab, and 13 articles authored by their directors or research directors. Across the data, the proposed policy solutions consisted of tracking, managing and suppressing any COVID-relevant expression perceived as undermining the official policy response. It followed that the “problem” was represented to be these expressions, or rather, individuals producing them, framed as threatening science, democracy and even human survival. NGOs also positioned themselves as experts in an emerging scientific field, infodemiology, thus equipped to evaluate all forms of communication according to their own or similar experts' standards. Notably, none of the documents engaged with the substance of opposing viewpoints or disconfirming evidence, dismissing them almost entirely via authority, ad populum, or ad hominem fallacies. We conclude that, rather than defending science, democracy, or human survival, these NGOs and their partners are undermining the open, respectful, and inclusive debate essential to support these values.