Eight Things Policymakers Must Know About Misinformation in Bangladesh
Misinformation isn't just about fake news—it’s a tool of suppression, a global challenge that fact-checking alone can't solve. Minhaj Aman dissects eight key issues that policymakers must understand.
ভুল তথ্য মোকাবেলায় বাংলাদেশের নীতিনির্ধারকরা মোটাদাগে আটটি বিষয়ে নজর দিতে পারেন। কারণ ভুল তথ্য ও বিভ্রান্তিমূলক তথ্য নতুন কিছু নয়। তবে এর থেকে উত্তরণের জন্য মিডিয়া লিটারেসি এবং কমিউনিটি নির্ভর তথ্য যাচাইয়ের উপর জোর দেওয়া প্রয়োজন, শুধুমাত্র ফ্যাক্ট চেকিংয়ের উপর নির্ভরশীল না হয়ে।
Fake news, misinformation, and disinformation have long been a global challenge, and Bangladesh is no exception. While an informed public requires no further explanation of its consequences, the way misinformation and disinformation have been framed as policy concerns by the Hasina government demands a closer scrutiny. Over the past 15 years, these have been repeatedly weaponized to justify censorship and suppress dissent. Alternative views and voices have frequently been dismissed as rumors and false, leading to legal action, harassment, and imprisonment of those who shared and circulated them. This is not to suggest that these individuals never spread misinformation. Indeed, they do. However, I want to highlight how the government selectively misused “fake news” toward suppressing dissent rather than combating misinformation.
After the July revolution and the fall of the Hasina government on August 5, 2024, Bangladesh has witnessed and faced firsthand how fake news escalated beyond small-scale harm and turned into a national crisis. A surge of false or misleading information flooded social media, later making its way into international media, including in neighboring countries. This mis-/disinformation significantly influenced Bangladesh’s relations with India and other nations. Consequently, under the leadership of Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the government seems to have begun treating the issue as a matter of national security. Yet, despite identifying the problem, both the government and civil society displayed a lack of clarity in their responses. As one of Bangladesh's earliest fact-checkers, I had the opportunity to share insights on this issue and provide input to various initiatives. I noticed that there is a serious gap in understanding this issue of misinformation and fake news in Bangladesh. Considering the global trend in misinformation research as well as my professional expertise and experience, I have put together the following eight things, primarily for policy makers, to better know the issues of fake news, misinformation, and disinformation in the context of Bangladesh.
1. Fake news is not a new phenomenon
Policymakers often discuss fake news as though it is a new challenge. However, fake news and other related terms such as misinformation, rumors, and propaganda have existed throughout history. A study by the International Center for Journalists traced fake news in Europe back over 2,000 years, showing that such misinformation was often published in contemporary media. Fake news has played a role in wars, political transitions, revolutions, and uprisings. This clarifies that fake news is not merely a social media problem—rather, the reach and influence of social media have exacerbated its negative effects. Just as past governments wanted to tackle fake news, so too did the Hasina administration. However, instead of finding solutions, the Hasina Regime turned to suppressing free speech. Through the CRI and other state apparatus, the government rather funded and facilitated networks to spread counter-misinformation, which ultimately backfired. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and TikTok later exposed these government-affiliated disinformation campaigns.
2. Not everyone spreads fake news intentionally
Many policymakers advocate for strict, punitive measures against those who spread fake news. However, they need to understand the difference between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation arises from ignorance or bias, where individuals unintentionally spread false information as truth. Disinformation, on the other hand, involves deliberate fabrication and coordinated dissemination to harm individuals, societies, or political entities. So, both misinformation and disinformation require distinct responses. For example, media literacy and information resilience programs may help better educate those who spread misinformation unintentionally. In the case of disinformation, nuanced detection methods need to be employed to identify the responsible actors. With my extensive experience in these issues, I can attest that experts have developed numerous ways to track such actors of disinformation. One potential solution is to implement regulatory mechanisms that would impact the financial incentives of media organizations that are found to spread mis/disinformation persistently. For instance, press councils or relevant authorities could introduce accountability measures on the disbursement of advertisement revenues. Alternatively, the Ministry of Information could collaborate with universities to publish monthly reports on media outlets that spread mis/diinformation. However, the government should avoid directly engaging in fact-checking activities or statistical analysis; its role should be to facilitate independent oversight.
3. Fake news cannot be tackled solely through fact-checking
During seminars and discussions, concern over fake news is invariably followed by a call for widespread fact-checking. However, this is neither feasible nor sufficient. Fact-checking is not a singular skill; but it requires a combination of news literacy, critical thinking, technical proficiency, journalistic acumen, and an understanding of social media policies. Furthermore, it is unrealistic for a society or state to expect universal fact-checking capabilities. Instead, the focus should be on advancing media literacy. Understanding the core elements that make information reliable should be a fundamental focus of education. Many countries have integrated such lessons into primary and secondary education. Ministries such as Youth Development and Social Welfare could introduce long-term, structured programs to enhance mass level media literacy.
4. Restricting the internet or imposing legal penalties will not solve fake news
In Bangladesh, discussions on fake news are often linked to censorship. Globally, restrictions on media freedom have resulted in the widespread public distrust in mainstream news outlets. The lack of institutional mechanisms to counter misinformation often lead the authorities to take a punitive rather than corrective approach, such as media shutdowns and impractical penalties. Such harsh measures ultimately harm the entire nation. Instead, media accountability should be strengthened through institutional mechanisms, such as independent research units in universities and government institutions like the Press Institute of Bangladesh (PIB). Establishing independent media watchdog organizations could also contribute to a more structured approach to addressing fake news.
5. Fact-checking is not a purely technical skill
Discussions on fake news often imply that fact-checking is a complex science, with policymakers frequently consulting computer scientists and engineers. While Bangladesh’s ICT Ministry has undertaken various initiatives to ensure fact-checking, the fundamental fact remains the same: fighting misinformation truly requires developing common sense and imparting basic media literacy. Fact-checking does not always require advanced technological expertise. While open-source intelligence (OSINT) techniques do demand technical skills, the broader task of verifying information depends on public understanding of what constitutes fact and evidence, which originally comes from having basic information and digital literacy. So, fact-checking should not be seen as an exclusive domain of tech professionals.
6. The less educated are not necessarily more vulnerable to fake news
In discussions about fake news, educated elites often cite rural populations as the most susceptible to misinformation. They argue that limited education and lack of digital literacy make these communities more vulnerable. However, research indicates that dissemination of fake news and accepting it as fact are influenced not only by educational levels but also by political polarization, religious biases, social divides, and personal incentives. Education alone is not the primary determinant of vulnerability to misinformation; various factors make it more complex.
7. Fact-checking is not solely the responsibility of professional fact-checkers
It is widely assumed that only professional fact-checkers should verify information. However, access to reliable information is a fundamental right of all citizens. Fact-checking should be embedded within various professional and social communities. The limited number of professional fact-checkers cannot address the vast volume of misinformation alone. Instead, community-based fact-checking models should be encouraged. Social media influencers, medical professionals, scientists, and other professionals should be equipped with the necessary skills to circulate accurate information. Mistakes will occur, but with continuous training and engagement, communities can develop strong fact-checking capacities.
8. Not all fake news can be fact-checked
Every field has limitations, and fact-checking is no exception. Fact-checking aims to determine the accuracy of claims and clarify what is true. However, certain types of information cannot be fact-checked, including personal beliefs, predictions, unverifiable claims, especially the ones lacking tangible evidence.
By addressing these eight key issues, policymakers can develop more effective strategies to combat misinformation while safeguarding freedom of expression and ensuring access to reliable information for all.
About the Author: Minhaj Aman is an information integrity researcher with a background in fact-checking. As an early pioneer in the field, he has deep expertise in combating misinformation. His interests extend to platform accountability and digital privacy, focusing on the evolving challenges of the online information ecosystem. He can be reached at Minhajaman@proton.me
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect The Insighta's editorial stance. However, any errors in the stated facts or figures may be corrected if supported by verifiable evidence. | A guest post by
|