When you correct a falsehood, put the true statement in the headline, subject line, first sentence, and image, and keep the false claim out of those positions, because most of the audience will see only that part and will carry away whatever it says.

How to do it

1. 1Write the headline as an affirmative fact: "Tap water in the district is safe to drink", not "Is the tap water poisoned?" and not "No, the tap water is not poisoned".
2. 2Avoid question headlines and simple negations of the myth. Both reproduce the false claim in full, and the "no" or the question mark is the part that memory drops first.
3. 3Keep the myth out of the image, thumbnail, and preview card. Never reproduce the false meme or screenshot unmarked; if it must be shown, overlay a clear label across it so that it cannot be cropped back into circulation.
4. 4Do not quote-post or link directly to the falsehood if you can describe it. Engagement of any kind tells ranking systems to show the original to more people.
5. 5Mention the myth once, lower down, after a warning, and then return to the fact (see the truth sandwich).
6. 6Before publishing, read only your headline and first line and ask: if this were all someone saw, what would they now believe?

When to use it

• •Writing headlines, subject lines, push alerts, social posts, and thumbnails for any correction or fact-check.
• •Correcting a rumour in a community group, school newsletter, or workplace channel.
• •Deciding whether to respond publicly to a fringe claim that has not yet reached your audience.
• •Reporting on a false statement by a prominent person.

Counters

Evidence and how strong it is

Three lines of research support the rule. Repetition increases belief: Pennycook, Cannon & Rand (2018) found that a single prior exposure to a fake headline raised its later perceived accuracy, even when it had been labelled as disputed. Headlines dominate: Gabielkov et al. (2016) found most shared links are never opened, and Ecker et al. (2014) showed that a misleading headline biases memory even for those who read the article. Negations are fragile: Skurnik et al. (2005) found that, after a delay, older adults in particular misremembered claims flagged as false as true. Phillips (2018), from interviews with journalists, documents how coverage intended to debunk fringe claims amplified them. Evidence strength: good for each premise, with one important correction to older advice. The fear that any repetition of a myth inside a correction backfires is not supported: Swire, Ecker & Lewandowsky (2017) and Ecker, Lewandowsky & Chadwick (2020) found familiarity backfire effects to be elusive, and corrections that repeat the myth once still reduce belief. The rule concerns prominence and needless amplification; it is not a ban on naming the myth.

1. Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior Exposure Increases Perceived Accuracy of Fake News. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865-1880
   Evidence that one exposure to a false headline raises later belief, even with a warning label.
2. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Chang, E. P., & Pillai, R. (2014). The Effects of Subtle Misinformation in News Headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 323-335
   Experiments showing that headlines shape memory and inference even when the article is read.
3. Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005). How Warnings About False Claims Become Recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 713-724
   Evidence that "this is false" tags are forgotten over time, leaving the familiar claim behind.
4. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., & Chadwick, M. (2020). Can Corrections Spread Misinformation to New Audiences? Testing for the Elusive Familiarity Backfire Effect. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 5, 41
   Evidence that repeating a myth within a correction rarely backfires, with a small risk when the audience had not previously encountered the claim.
5. Swire, B., Ecker, U. K. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2017). The Role of Familiarity in Correcting Inaccurate Information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43(12), 1948-1961
   Evidence that corrections mentioning the myth still reduce belief, although the effect fades with time.
6. Phillips, W. (2018). The Oxygen of Amplification: Better Practices for Reporting on Extremists, Antagonists, and Manipulators Online. Data & Society Research Institute
   Interview-based account of how debunking coverage amplified fringe claims, with recommended newsroom practices.