"Television broadcast misinformation"—have you fallen for this misunderstanding?

"Television was broadcasting misinformation"—when you saw that phrase on social media, how did you interpret it?

The other day, Toyo University's Professor Morihiro Ogasawara released survey results that became a hot topic. Among the representative pieces of misinformation that spread during the House of Representatives election period this February, nearly 80% were mistakenly recognized as "fact." And as for the path through which that information was obtained, television accounted for the highest share at 32.7%.

For those of you who felt, "I knew television was no good"—please wait a moment. When I first saw this headline, I honestly almost interpreted it the same way. But when you properly read through the content of the survey, a slightly different picture emerges. "How to read" reports is a question posed to each and every one of us.

Did television "broadcast misinformation"?

Reading the initial headlines reporting on this survey, it seems that quite a few people interpreted it as "television was broadcasting misinformation," and many posts to that effect were seen on social media. Since I often think about information literacy in the medical field, this reaction really concerned me.

What the survey shows is that "the most common path for encountering misinformation was television." In other words, it means there were many cases where misinformation was transmitted through television. It does not necessarily mean that television created and broadcast the misinformation.

Can you see this difference? Please bear with me for just a moment.

Why does misinformation spread via television?

So, why did misinformation spread through television? I believe there are three structural reasons for this.

The first is the "counterproductive effect" of fact-checking reports. When people see a news headline that says "So-and-so is a lie," what often remains strongly in the human brain is the "So-and-so" part. This is a phenomenon close to what is called "asymmetry in the processing of negative words" in cognitive psychology, where information presented in a negative context is more likely to be remembered as positive content. It is the irony that fact-checking reports unintentionally reinforce misinformation.

The second is the issue of the format of straight news such as party leader debates and street speeches. Broadcasting a candidate's remarks as they are is legitimate as reporting. However, even if the remarks contain errors or inaccurate information, verification cannot keep up in straight news that prioritizes immediacy. Viewers see the footage on television of "the person saying it themselves" and accept it as fact.

The third is the paradox that the sense of trust in television itself increases the rate of misrecognition. In the survey as well, the misrecognition rate via television was the highest at 84.9%. The existing trust that "it must be true because it's on TV" may actually be acting as a brake on critical thinking.

The weight of the "80% misrecognition" figure

I want you to pause for a moment and look at this figure again. Of the five representative pieces of misinformation that spread during the House of Representatives election period, 79.9% of people who saw or heard even one of them thought it was "fact."

Particularly impressive was the information that "the surge in apartment prices is because foreigners are buying them for speculative purposes," which 44.4% of respondents had seen or heard, and 89.6% of those recognized it as fact. I myself have heard this story in workplace small talk. The feeling of "I've heard that somewhere" gradually changes into "this might be true"—I suspect there are many people around you who have had that experience.

In the movie "Inception," there is a line that says, "An idea is the most resilient parasite." Once an image is planted, it is difficult to erase even if it is denied. Reading this survey, I thought again that it is a phrase that hits the nail on the head regarding the terror of misinformation.

What we can do, three honest proposals

So, what should we do? I will honestly share three challenges that I am thinking about.

First, "don't judge by the headline alone." This is easy to say, but difficult in practice. But at the very least, when you see the phrase "television is the most common," just developing the habit of pausing for a moment and asking, "What is the most common?" will make a difference.

Next is to compare multiple media sources. In this case as well, the Asahi Shimbun article reported on the survey content quite faithfully. Even with the same survey, the way it is excerpted can completely change how it is perceived. This is exactly the same for medical information, and it is something I feel every day.

Finally, have the premise that you yourself might be deceived. There is nothing more dangerous than the confidence that "I will not be deceived." Even researchers and experts are not free from cognitive bias. The humility of thinking, "I might be misunderstanding this myself," is the greatest weapon when facing information.

The ability to read news is the fundamental strength of democracy

In response to this survey, Professor Ogasawara appeals that it has become difficult for individuals to determine the truth of information, and it is necessary to develop an environment where it is easier to access reliable information. I completely agree.

At the same time, I feel that we also need to cultivate "reading skills" on the individual side. While waiting for the environment to be improved, we must also polish our own reading comprehension—both are necessary.

Because an election is a situation that involves social decision-making, the impact of misinformation is significant. I believe that the ability to correctly interpret news, like the ability to face medical information, is a fundamental strength required of everyone living in the modern age.

Conclusion

To summarize what we have discussed:

What the Toyo University survey showed was that "television was the most common path for encountering misinformation," not that "television broadcast misinformation." Behind the spread through television, there are three structures: the paradoxical effect of fact-checking reports, the limitations of verifying straight news, and the fact that trust in television increases the rate of misunderstanding. And it is the challenge of "how to interpret news" that each of us faces that is being questioned in this era.

The sea of information will become deeper and faster from here on out. However, I want you to become someone who reads the movement of the waves rather than being swallowed by them—you have that power.

If you have any concerns or questions, please let me know in the comments section. Thank you for reading this far. Thank you very much.

#FakeNews #MediaLiteracy #InformationLiteracy #HouseOfRepresentativesElection2026 #MisinformationCountermeasures