While specific knowledge requirements for MIL may shift to deal with emerging threats, the core “scaffold” of competencies and attitudes tends to remain relevant across trends and over time. The greater challenge is ensuring that MIL is not narrowly conceived for one demographic (such as students or young people), and that strategies for provision are more creative about accessing groups beyond formal education (e.g. through employers, unions or faith-based institutions). One goal of MIL is to help people source credible information and take greater responsibility for what they consume, where they consume it and how they choose to respond. It focuses on what can be taught, but must also consider what can be facilitated and encouraged within information ecosystems. At the individual level, this can be characterized as: –Competences (taught): Understanding the nature and salience of disinformation in everyday life, with tools and skills to effectively analyse content regardless of its source. –Behaviours (facilitated): Actively seeking out credible or evidence-based information and holding oneself and others to account in a constructive manner. –Attributes (encouraged): Prioritizing nuance over simple binaries and seeing the benefit of more regulated, transparent and safe information spaces. To tackle disinformation holistically, a wider range of socio-cultural factors becomes critical. These include, but are not limited to: –Robust “taxonomies of harm” that evidence the impact disinformation can have on individuals, communities and societies at large –Motivated champions for information integrity in the public sphere, including cultural and political figures across the ideological spectrum –Universal access to fact-based and verifiable information sources, catering to a range of audiences both online and offline –Clear legal definitions at the national and multilateral level – for example, where disinformation intersects with hate speech, incitement to violence or other criminal activity (e.g. electoral interference) –Transparent standards and regulatory oversight for legacy media (press, radio, broadcast) –Campaigns that explain and celebrate the process for producing credible journalism and scientific data –Mechanisms to report harmful disinformation that are clear, fair and properly enforced (e.g. by tech companies or law enforcement) Crucially, education alone will never be enough. Even if progress were achieved in all the areas listed, this would likely be eclipsed by a more systemic and pressing need: to build healthy incentives into the information ecosystem at all levels. 2.1 A holistic response to disinformationThe integrated model presented in this section combines the disinformation life cycle – capturing the stages from pre-creation and content production to distribution, consumption and post-consumption – with the socio-ecological model, which considers the layered influences on behaviour at the individual, interpersonal, community, institutional and policy levels. By aligning these two perspectives, the model enables a more strategic and systemic approach to digital safety and designing MIL interventions. It helps identify where current efforts may be concentrated or lacking, guides organizations in tailoring their strategies more effectively and underscores the importance of context-aware, multi-level responses to disinformation. Rethinking Media Literacy: A New Ecosystem Model for Information Integrity 14

Rethinking Media Literacy 2025