The five moves of misinformation
Fake experts, impossible demands, cherry-picked facts, conspiracy thinking and false balance: name the move and it loses its power.
THE MAP
FLICC: five letters, five moves
Researcher John Cook groups the common techniques of denial and misinformation under one word, FLICC: Fake experts, Logical fallacies, Impossible expectations, Cherry-picking and Conspiracy theories. We'll take the four that aren't classic fallacies, then add one more that news formats create by accident: false balance.
Cook's point is that the topic changes but the moves don't. The same cherry-picking works on climate, on health and on the economy.
F · FAKE EXPERTS
Expert in what?
A fake expert is someone presented as an authority on a question they have no special knowledge of. It comes in three flavours: a person with a title but no training in the field, a long list of "scientists" where few work on the topic, and a real expert quoted far outside their field. A title answers "is this person clever?" The question that matters is "do they know this subject?"
"Over 500 scientists signed a letter saying this food additive is safe." Check the list: most turn out to be engineers and economists, and only a handful study food safety.
Check yourself
A forwarded video shows a well-known heart surgeon saying a new crypto coin is "the safest investment of the decade". What is the most useful thing to notice?
- Surgeons are highly trained, so his opinion carries extra weight
- He is a real expert speaking far outside his field, so his title tells you nothing about crypto
- The video must be a deepfake, because surgeons don't talk about money
- Crypto coins are always scams, so he must be lying
Show the answer
He is a real expert speaking far outside his field, so his title tells you nothing about crypto
Right. Being excellent at heart surgery says nothing about judging an investment. Ask "expert in what?" and his authority on this question disappears.
I · IMPOSSIBLE EXPECTATIONS
Demanding 100% before accepting anything
Science rarely says "certain". It says "very likely", "strong evidence", "95% confident". The impossible-expectations move treats anything short of perfect certainty as if nothing were known: "not certain" becomes "unknown". A close cousin is moving the goalposts: when the evidence asked for arrives, the demand quietly changes.
"Show me one study." Here are ten. "Those were funded by universities, show me independent ones." Here are those. "Studies can be wrong anyway." The goal was never evidence.
Check yourself
Doctors say they are about 95% confident a treatment works. Since that isn't 100%, the question is still open and any opinion about it is as good as another.
Show the answer
False
False. That's the impossible-expectations move. Almost nothing useful is known with total certainty, from weather forecasts to the safety of bridges. 95% confidence is a lot of knowledge, and it beats an opinion with no evidence behind it.
C · CHERRY-PICKING
Only the data that fits
Cherry-picking is choosing the few facts that support a conclusion and leaving out the many that don't. Every single fact can be true; the lie is in what's missing. The classic version picks one unusual moment out of a long trend, or the one study out of many that agrees.
Twenty studies test a supplement. Nineteen find no effect; one small study finds a benefit. A post quotes only that one: "Science proves it works." The study is real. The picture is false.
Check yourself
"It snowed in April this year, so the planet obviously isn't warming." Which move is this?
- Fake experts
- Impossible expectations
- Cherry-picking
- False balance
Show the answer
Cherry-picking
Yes. One cold spell is picked out of a trend measured over many decades, across the whole planet. The snow can be real and still say almost nothing about the trend.
C · CONSPIRACY THINKING
When nothing could ever count against it
Watch for three signs. Evidence against it becomes proof of the cover-up. It needs huge numbers of people (thousands of doctors, every newspaper) to keep a secret perfectly. And it is immune to any possible disproof: no result could ever change the believer's mind. Real conspiracies do happen, but they were uncovered by documents, records and whistleblowers, not by connecting dots.
"Every doctor who says the tea doesn't work is paid to say so." Now a doctor's opinion can only ever confirm the theory, never test it.
Check yourself
A post says: "The fact that there's no evidence at all just shows how well they've hidden it." What does this sentence reveal?
- A strong argument, since good cover-ups leave no evidence
- A sign of conspiracy thinking: the claim is built so nothing could ever disprove it
- Cherry-picking, because it ignores some of the evidence
- A fake expert, because no source is named
Show the answer
A sign of conspiracy thinking: the claim is built so nothing could ever disprove it
Right. If evidence would support the theory and no evidence also supports it, then nothing could ever count against it. A claim that can't lose can't be tested either.
False balance: two voices, unequal evidence
Balance of voices
A TV debate gives one minute to a researcher and one minute to a lone dissenter. It looks fair. The viewer comes away thinking experts are split 50-50.
Balance of evidence
Nearly every study and nearly every specialist land on one side; a few people dissent. A fair picture shows how lopsided it really is, even if both views are mentioned.
Check yourself
A news show covers a question almost all experts agree on. It invites one researcher and one dissenter and gives each the same time, with no mention of how many experts stand on each side. That's…
- Good journalism, because both sides are heard equally
- Cherry-picking, because only two people were invited
- False balance: equal time makes a lopsided question look evenly split
- Impossible expectations, because the researcher can't be 100% sure
Show the answer
False balance: equal time makes a lopsided question look evenly split
Yes. Giving both views airtime isn't the problem; presenting them as equal is. Balance of voices is not balance of evidence.
Whataboutism
Answering a criticism with "but what about…?", pointing at someone else's fault instead. It changes the subject; it doesn't answer the point. Both things can be true at once, and each deserves its own answer.
"This clinic sells fake cures." "What about the big pharmacy chains, they overcharge too." Maybe so, but the clinic's cures are still fake.
How to respond when you spot a move
- Name the move calmly
"That's one cold winter out of a fifty-year trend." Describe what the post does, not what the person is. No "you're gullible".
- Show what's missing
The other nineteen studies, the specialists who were left off the list, how many experts stand on each side.
- Go back to the full evidence
End on what the whole picture says, in one plain sentence, so that's what people remember.
Check yourself
Match each line to the move it uses
Show the answer
- "A famous actor says this diet reverses ageing." → Fake expert
- "Until they can prove it's 100% safe, it's dangerous." → Impossible expectations
- "Sales fell in March, so the new product is a flop." (It sold well all year.) → Cherry-picking
- "Of course the reports deny it. That's what they'd say." → Conspiracy thinking
- "Why criticise our town's air? What about the capital's?" → Whataboutism
Lesson recap
- Misinformation reuses a few moves; John Cook calls them FLICC. Naming the move makes it easier to see.
- Fake experts: ask "expert in what?" A title or a long list of names isn't expertise in this question.
- Impossible expectations: "not 100% certain" is not "unknown". Watch for goalposts that move.
- Cherry-picking: each fact may be true; the lie is in what was left out.
- Conspiracy thinking turns every piece of evidence against it into proof, so nothing could ever disprove it.
- False balance: equal airtime isn't equal evidence. Respond by naming the move calmly, then returning to all the evidence.