How do we judge the veracity of ambiguous news, and does our metacognitive ability in making such judgments guide our decisions to seek additional information? The mechanisms by which individuals assess the veracity of ambiguous news and subsequently decide whether to acquire extra information to resolve ambiguity remain unclear. In a controlled experiment, participants evaluated non-partisan, ambiguous news and decided whether to seek more information. Individuals' confidence in their veracity judgments did not predict actual accuracy, showing limited metacognitive ability when facing ambiguous news. Despite this, confidence in one's judgment was the primary driver of the demand for additional information about the news. Lower confidence predicted a stronger desire for extra information, regardless of the veracity judgment. Two key news characteristics (imprecision and polarization) led individuals to confidently misinterpret both true and fake news. News imprecision and news tendency to polarize opinions increased the likelihood of misjudgment, highlighting individuals' vulnerability to ambiguity. Structural equation modeling revealed that the demand for disambiguating information, driven by uncalibrated metacognition, may become increasingly ineffective as individuals are drawn in by the ambiguity of the news. Our results underscore the importance of metacognitive abilities in mediating the relationship between assessing ambiguous information and the decision to seek or avoid further information. These findings suggest that interventions aimed at reducing ambiguity in news content and training individuals to calibrate their confidence in judgments could be effective strategies for combating misinformation.