When a government-led fact-checking initiative in Brazil first surfaced in 2020, it didn’t take long for fact-checkers in the South American nation of more than 216 million people to notice that it looked more like government propaganda than a real fact-checking effort.
The initiative “supposedly focuses on combating disinformation, but it only deals with issues related to the government itself in accordance with its own political interests,” said Natália Leal, the chief executive of Lupa, an IFCN signatory.
In a November 2023 report, Lupa found that 52% of the stories published by the Brazilian government’s fact-checking desk, dubbed Brasil Contra Fake, lacked transparent sourcing, or the sources came exclusively from within the government.
For instance, a claim circulating on social media sites in March 2023 alleged the administration of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva sent 2 million Brazilian Real to victims of a storm that hit the coastal areas of São Paulo a month before. The government-affiliated fact-checking unit designated the claim false and said that some 10 million Brazilian Real was disbursed. But Brasil Contra Fake didn’t provide any evidence or official documents to support the claim, according to Lupa.
Leal said that even though the government’s intention is to disseminate true information, the communication is shared from a partisan political perspective and is “guided by the interests of those in power.”’
A review of global trends reveals that more and more governments are engaging in what they’re calling fact-checking initiatives.
The administration of Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed launched a fact-checking desk called Ethiopia Current Issues Fact Check in November 2020. A devastating civil war broke out the same month. Fact-checkers said the government initiative was heavily engaged in disseminating propaganda during the war and did little to follow fact-checking principles like transparency and nonpartisanship.
“The fact that this government initiative started operations at the onset of the war and ended its activities three months after the signing of a peace deal speaks volumes. It was launched to serve the government during the war,” said a fact-checker at Ethiopia Check, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to fear of government reprisal.
Ika Ningtyas, a fact-checking coordinator for Tempo magazine in Indonesia, pointed to a government initiative called KOMINFO that was established ahead of the 2019 presidential election. It produced mixed results.
“This initiative under the Ministry of Communication and Information sometimes produces biased articles on political issues during elections or on issues related to government policies,” Ika said. She noted that the government desk did occasionally share information based on articles debunked by fact-checking and media organizations, which helped to amplify credible information.
Ika said the Indonesian government has used defamation and other laws to jail critics in the name of fighting disinformation. “For instance, during protests against a 2020 law that reduced labor rights, the government aggressively labeled some critical content as hoaxes and some activists who criticized it were arrested,” she said.
In India, the proposed Karnataka Information Disorder Tracking Unit in the southwest of the country has sparked a different reaction. Rakesh Dubbudu, the founder and chief executive officer of Factly, an IFCN signatory, said he cautiously welcomes the unit, which aims to set up a fact-checking team among other projects.
“The government’s increasing focus on misinformation and disinformation is welcome since it affects people at large, and the issue is to be addressed with all seriousness. In that sense, the Karnataka Information Tracking Unit is welcome,” Rakesh said.
However, he warned that if fact-checking organizations are directly involved with the unit for financial gains, it may raise concerns about editorial independence. Rakesh said government efforts would rather be better channeled into media and information literacy initiatives, legislation and efficient regulations.
Rajneil R. Kamath, the founder and publisher of Newschecker in India, noted that the Karnataka Information Tracking Unit requires claims to be approved by a state government official, which goes against the core principles of fact-checking.
“The selective choice of claims to fact-check is going to lead to credibility and trust issues among the public. Will this unit fact-check those who belong to the ruling party in the state? It should not become a witch hunt of political opponents,” he said.
These debates around government-led fact-checking activities come at a time when the threat of misinformation is becoming larger and more complex.
The World Economic Forum’s latest report, called “The Global Risks Report 2024,” has listed misinformation and disinformation as the top global risks for the next two years.
“Emerging as the most severe global risk anticipated over the next two years, foreign and domestic actors alike will leverage misinformation and disinformation to further widen societal and political divides,” the report said, adding that the risk of domestic propaganda and censorship will rise in turn. “In response to mis- and disinformation, governments could be increasingly empowered to control information based on what they determine to be ‘true.’”
Masato Kajimoto, a journalism professor at the University of Hong Kong, said government fact-checking is common in Asia, with such initiatives appearing in Singapore, Malaysia, India, China, Thailand and Vietnam.
“Many ‘public’ broadcasters in Asia that are heavily, if not fully, subsidized by governments also have fact-checking articles and TV programs. Some are editorially more independent than others but, overall, their ‘fact-checking’ has clear political limitations,” he said.
Fact-checkers say government-led fact-checking activities tend to have trouble meeting standards for impartiality, objectivity and transparency that are critical to the discipline. Others argue governments can misuse their authority, and there’s a greater danger of using fact-checking to stifle dissent and deploy it for propaganda.
Ika said she feels fact-checking initiatives are currently being “hijacked” by governments in countries with declining democracies.
“Such initiatives must be handed over to independent organizations to ensure the credibility of the information presented to the public,” she said.
Correction: An earlier draft of this misattributed a quote from Ika Ningtyas to Masato Kajimoto.
