The Past, Present, and Future of the US Information Integrity Field

The Tech Policy Press Podcast
Date: November 15, 2025
Host: Dean Jackson (Tech Policy Press)
Guests: Adam Fivensen (formerly at National Endowment for Democracy) & Professor Samantha Bradshaw (American University)

Episode Overview

This episode offers a retrospective and prospective discussion on the field of information integrity in the US, covering its evolution from 2016 through the dramatic funding and institutional changes post-2024. Host Dean Jackson is joined by Adam Fivensen and Samantha Bradshaw—leading experts and practitioners—to reflect on what’s been learned, what’s been lost, and what paths forward are possible. They discuss the impact of funding cuts, the politicization of the field, the blurring of information quality standards, and strategies for strengthening the information environment in democratic societies.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Did We Lose the So-called "Information War"?

• Reframing the Metaphor:

  • Samantha Bradshaw (04:20): “I wouldn't say we've lost by any means. I’d say we’ve actually been transformed by what’s been happening. The battlefield has really shifted inwards into our social relationships, into how we use and consume media online, and even our shared sense of realities… it’s more of a social problem to heal.”
  • The concept of an "information war" is critiqued as unhelpful, as it frames the crisis as strictly military with clear enemies, rather than as a transformation in the information environment affecting trust, relationships, and democracy.

• The Broadening Threat:

  • Adam Fivensen (05:12): “This isn’t Russia’s war on the West, but perhaps Russia and its authoritarian allies’ war on the very idea of citizens working together in good faith … what we call democracy.”
  • The problem transcends nation-states and is deeply interwoven with democratic decline and failures to perceive/managing information environment threats.

2. Defining Information Integrity—What's at Stake?

• Semantics and Subjectivity:

  • Adam Fivensen (07:09): “To me, the idea... is that citizens in a democracy should be more likely to encounter high quality information than low quality information … That term, high quality information, that's obviously subjective.”
  • The field is in a continuous struggle to define and standardize terms such as misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and information integrity itself—with political considerations influencing terminology and priorities.

• Objective vs. Subjective Truth:

  • Adam Fivensen (08:15): “There are some things that either happened or they didn’t... But when we're talking about the interpretation of real world events... that requires interpretation.”
  • Clarity exists for basic facts, but contestation grows around interpretations, especially in politics and current events, magnifying the difficulty in maintaining a stable baseline of trust.

3. Markers of Information Integrity and the Consequence of Its Collapse

• Flattened Trust Markers in a Digital Age:

  • Formerly trustworthy cues (like broadcast licenses or newsroom procedures) have been undermined by the architecture of online platforms, where credible and dubious sources now sit side by side.
  • Adam Fivensen (12:10): “It's as if the entire information ecosystem is now the National Enquirer ... focused on delivering [people] to advertisers… not helping people understand the challenges that they're facing in society.”

• Consequences of Low-Integrity Information:

  • The undermining of markers of trust leads to manipulation and diminished ability of citizens to make informed decisions.

4. Separating Information Integrity from Censorship and Propaganda

• Process vs. Control:

  • Samantha Bradshaw (14:21): “Information integrity... is a process and as like a system that can help people access reliable information … [it] has much more to do with empowering citizens to make better or informed decisions, and censorship and propaganda as something that is used to disempower people.”
  • Information integrity focuses on transparency, accuracy, and accountability; censorship and propaganda focus on control and disempowerment.

• Freedom of Expression:

  • Adam Fivensen (16:11): “Censorship is when the government uses its power to silence its critics. What the information integrity community has been doing is highlighting manipulation and lies, using our first amendment rights … to call out people who are trying to manipulate, and I would argue trying to harm the public more broadly.”

5. The Role and Limits of Content Moderation

• Essential for Free Speech:

  • Dean Jackson (18:26): “You can't really express yourself meaningfully if there’s a constant parade of bad actors marching through the space...”
  • Without effective moderation, public discourse is drowned out by extremists and manipulators, making vibrant conversation impossible.

• Failure of Tech Platforms:

  • Samantha Bradshaw (20:16): “Our communication systems weren't built for this kind of uncertainty. Social media ... rewards emotion and it rewards virality. It doesn't reward accuracy or context or slowing down in an uncertain environment.”
  • Platforms’ business models and lack of transparency have fostered structural problems—moderation is necessary, but its implementation and communication to users often fail, breeding mistrust and confusion.

6. Field Retrenchment and Fallout from Funding Cuts

• Dramatic Impact on Workforce and Practice:

  • Adam Fivensen (23:03): "Let's fire all the journalists and the fact checkers ... and that the US Government in particular has been able to support to do that work over the last X number of years. Let's see what happens if you let the bottom drop out there. And I fear that the results will be quite terrifying.”
  • US funding cuts (2025) have devastated both domestic and global information integrity infrastructure, leaving journalists, civil society, and fact-checkers unsupported.

• Global Implications:

  • Some European and private funders are stepping up, but many regions face a catastrophic gap. The US’s historical focus on civil society support is seen as essential for international stability and democratization, now under threat.
  • Adam Fivensen (26:21): “…the loss of US support I view as potentially catastrophic and that it will have significant impacts on Americans, prosperity, safety and security.”

7. Future Strategies: New Priorities and Collaborations

• Prioritization and Experimentation:

  • Retreating funders may create room for new approaches, risk-taking, and prioritization in strategies for defending information integrity.
  • Adam Fivensen (29:11): “The first one for me is to refocus our effort on real world harms … areas like health, like climate, like safety and security. These are areas where I think we have a real opportunity to expand the aperture and the conversation.”

• Reclaiming the Free Speech Mandate:

  • The integrity field needs to reclaim its position as defenders of free speech, not as censors.

• Distributed, Resilient Support:

  • The sector should move from competitive, slow bureaucratic models to agile, distributed, collective support for frontline practitioners.

8. Embracing and Critiquing Participatory Media

• Engaging Audiences Where They Are—With Caution:

  • Dean Jackson (32:57): “Why aren’t we all on TikTok?”
  • Samantha Bradshaw (33:46): “We have to be careful to not just simply buy into the same media logic that has created many of the current problems … Are we reaching people in a way that’s actually building understanding and critical thinking? Or are we just competing in the same race for attention?”

• Innovating Beyond "Attention Economy":

  • There’s a need for models like slow journalism and community storytelling, but real impact requires funding and resources.
  • Samantha Bradshaw (36:49): “A lot of people are feeling an increasing disconnect because of the way that technology has been driven by ... attention economics. … We just need people to make those investments, to take a lot of these initiatives around community based storytelling off the ground and to get them out there.”

• Reclaiming Influence:

  • Adam Fivensen (38:56): “If we want to be in a position where we can help to influence policy … then I actually think that Renee and Rachel’s argument is very strong … We should be training people on vertical video ... Even if only 5% of our sector were to get on to social media or get onto TikTok … I think that’s at least part of what can bring us toward regaining some salience.”

9. Building New Alliances: Breaking the Echo Chamber

• Cross-Sector Collaboration as Imperative:
  • Health, climate, and anti-corruption communities are identified as natural adjacent partners, but reaching the business and national security sectors is crucial for broader impact.
  • Adam Fivensen (42:08): "We’ve got to figure out where those entry points are, where the issues that [businesses] care about align with the issues that we care about … giving them a rationale, a business rationale for investing in information integrity broadly ... is a puzzle that we have not yet figured out how to solve."

10. Grounding Policy in Specific Harms and Communities

• The Need for Concrete Evidence:
  • Samantha Bradshaw (45:15): “I think we need more … to be able to develop very clear policy responses to different kinds of threats. We need to know what kind of communities or individuals might be at a greater risk ... more about how media diets and Internet habits ... are affecting how people consume, internalize news and information and then go out into the real world with political beliefs and values and behaviors. And ... more of these studies done within broader geographies and within broader contexts to really come up with strong policy solutions to counter them.”

Notable Quotes (with Timestamps)

• On the Shift in the Field:
  “The battlefield has really shifted inwards into our social relationships, into how we use and consume media online, and even our shared sense of realities … it’s more of a social problem to heal.”
  — Samantha Bradshaw (04:20)

• On the Loss of Infrastructure:
  “Let’s fire all the journalists and the fact checkers ... I fear that the results will be quite terrifying, not just for people in those contexts, but ... for Americans' prosperity, safety, and security.”
  — Adam Fivensen (23:03, 26:21)

• On Platforms and Virality:
  “Social media ... rewards emotion and it rewards virality. It doesn't reward accuracy or context or slowing down in an uncertain environment.”
  — Samantha Bradshaw (20:16)

• On the need to adapt:
  “I would argue that our sector ... we should be training people on vertical video. ... Even if only 5% of our sector were to get on to social media or get onto TikTok ... that’s at least part of what can bring us toward regaining some salience.”
  — Adam Fivensen (38:56)

Key Timestamps for Important Segments

• Challenging the Information War Metaphor: 02:04–05:47
• Defining Information Integrity and Fact/Value Tensions: 06:27–12:45
• Separation from Censorship, Moderation Debates: 14:21–18:26
• COVID-era Case Study and Platform Content Moderation: 20:16–22:52
• Funding Cuts Fallout & Global Impacts: 23:03–28:29
• Strategic Priorities & Infrastructure for the Future: 29:11–32:57
• Participation, TikTok & the Logic of Attention Economy: 32:57–38:56
• Building Alliances with Business & Security Sectors: 42:08–44:30
• Call for Harm-based, Specific Research: 45:15–47:13

Memorable Moments

• Dean’s “National Enquirer” supermarket-aisle analogy crystallizing the flattening of trust online (12:10).
• The panel’s candid assessment of the potentially “catastrophic” (26:21) impact of US withdrawal from the sector.
• The nuanced debate on whether trying to "play the TikTok game" could fix or worsen the information environment (33:46–38:56).
• Consensus that future progress relies on collaboration outside the echo chamber of information integrity circles.

Tone and Takeaways

The conversation is candid, analytic, and at times, apprehensive about the future of the information integrity field, but remains constructive in its approach. The panel is wary of easy solutions and calls for more pragmatic, harm-focused, and experimental approaches—rooted in both evidence and in partnerships beyond traditional boundaries.

For listeners/readers engaged in tech, democracy, or civil society work, this discussion offers both a sobering diagnosis of the sector’s setbacks and a hopeful, if challenging, path for new strategies, partnerships, and channels in the emergent information landscape.