Not only correcting lies. Analysis of interventionist strategies in news articles dealing with misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands

During crises, when falsehoods often spread faster than facts, journalists face the challenge of deciding how to fight misinformation without amplifying its reach. This study focuses on Dutch journalists who addressed pandemic-related misinformation during the COVID-19 crisis (January 2020–May 2023), distinguishing between actively interventionist strategies (correction and prebunking) and more detached approaches. Drawing on a content analysis of 698 news articles, it investigates the use of actively interventionist strategies, and their variation across pandemic phases and in their use of expert sources. Findings show that 14.2% of articles adopted actively interventionist roles, with corrections being more common than prebunking. Such strategies were more frequent during the initial uncertain phase of the pandemic and during vaccine rollouts. Articles using these strategies relied on a greater number and diversity of sources, especially academic, governmental, and health-related. The results highlight a cautious engagement by journalists in actively countering misinformation, favoring a more detached reporting. Overall, the study advances the understanding of journalistic role performance in health crises and the interplay between journalism practice and misinformation management.