Mastering the Paradox: How Governments Fight and Feed Disinformation at Once

April 25, 2025

By Marius Dragomir

Democracy

Instances of politicians perpetuating falsehoods in public discourse have become disturbingly commonplace in recent times. Bill Adair, the creator of PolitiFact—a Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking platform—referred to this trend as “the epidemic of political lying” in a book he published last year. Dishonesty has seeped into political and governmental spheres, encompassing everything from trivial fabrications to grandiose falsehoods, often strategically crafted to consolidate political clout or cling to power.

Over the past decade, swathes of research have pointed to the dire consequences of this phenomenon: the proliferation of disinformation, which wreaks havoc on society in the form of polarization, manipulation, and, at its most extreme, acts of violence.

However, the problem transcends isolated shortcomings by individual officials. When deceit evolves from ad hoc missteps to an orchestrated strategy—where state apparatuses construct intricate networks dedicated to the dissemination of deception—the stakes grow exponentially higher. Though state propaganda is far from new, recent decades have seen an explosion of more sophisticated tactics, radically altering the global communication equilibrium. The advent of social media has added fuel to this fire, empowering governments like never before. These digital platforms, for all their initial promise of amplifying marginalized voices, have increasingly provided authorities with a direct pipeline to the public. Consequently, state-sponsored messaging has blanketed the online landscape, magnifying curated narratives far and wide.

Even so, the government’s informational dominance is not confined to the digital realm alone. Substantial volumes of strategic messaging still flow through conventional media channels—such as television broadcasters, print media, and online news platforms. Unsurprisingly, steering the editorial direction of such outlets remains high on the agenda for most governments. Ironically, the very tool leveraged in government propaganda, disinformation, proves instrumental in cementing government control in the media as well.

Governments, it seems, walk a fine line in their approach to disinformation by wearing two hats. On one side, they orchestrate the spread of propaganda and false narratives through media under state control or influence. On the other, they purport to curb disinformation by implementing so-called anti-disinformation laws that more often than not act as a smokescreen for clamping down on press freedom and muzzling critical journalism.

But one might ask, how well does such a paradoxical strategy work?

An analysis of empirical data comparing state influence over media with forms of anti-disinformation measures adopted by the state reveals that this calculated and cunning strategy of embedding disinformation into state messaging while weaponizing it as an excuse to stifle independent journalism is alarmingly effective. It enables governments to use public narratives to their advantage at critical junctures while simultaneously spreading a climate of fear. The result is a silencing effect that extends from the media and journalists to ordinary citizens willing to share dissenting views online. In essence, this two-pronged approach kills two birds with one stone: controlling the message and intimidating the messengers at once.

Anti-Disinformation Laws: Indicators of Rising Authoritarian Tendencies?

Governments have long exercised influence over the media, but the last two decades paint a picture of escalating control, particularly in relation to national public and state-affiliated media outlets. These entities serve as prominent producers of content, wielding significant sway over public opinion and acting as key purveyors of information.

Findings from the State Media Monitor, a research initiative by the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), paint a troubling picture: 84 percent of 601 state-managed media organizations across 170 countries operate without editorial independence. Many of these outlets function as mouthpieces for government agendas. Collectively, these state-led media institutions manage an arsenal of over 7,000 media assets, spanning television and radio channels, print publications, news agencies, and digital platforms.

When cross-examined with data from a report conducted by the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) that mapped anti-disinformation laws worldwide[2], the State Media Monitor unveils a concerning trend: laws purportedly designed to counteract disinformation are disproportionately implemented in countries where the media landscape is already tightly controlled by the state. Between 2011 and 2022, a total of 105 laws targeting what CIMA report defined as “misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information (MDM)” came into effect, with the majority of them, 91, introduced between 2016 and 2022. This points to a notable nexus between anti-disinformation legislation and government command over the media.

Adding layers to the analysis by factoring in indices like democratic quality, media independence, and public ethics, additional patterns emerge. These data suggest noteworthy links between media suppression, creeping authoritarianism, and the fervent roll-out of disinformation-targeting laws (see Table). To illustrate: approximately 73 percent of the 302 state-controlled media outlets in countries with active anti-disinformation laws operate under authoritarian regimes or in nations classified as “flawed democracies” by the Economist Democracy Index.

To some extent, this revelation is hardly a bolt from the blue, considering the historical propensity of these nations toward authoritarian governance. This inclination naturally infiltrates the media field, where disinformation laws are weaponized to suppress press freedom.

What rings louder alarm bells, however, is the encroachment of such anti-disinformation statutes into nations known for their dedication to democratic principles and press freedom. While it is true that over 43% of the countries implementing anti-disinformation laws sit under the authoritarian umbrella, it is disconcerting to note their adoption by states categorized as “full democracies” (as defined by the Economist Democracy Index) such as Canada, Australia, Costa Rica, Greece, France, Denmark and Taiwan.

Admittedly, in some full democracies, the introduction of these laws seems to sidestep any substantive erosion of democratic norms or media independence. Denmark exemplifies this balance: legislation introduced in 2019 criminalizes the dissemination of disinformation that “aids or enables” foreign entities in influencing Danish public opinion. Even so, there is no persuasive evidence to suggest such measures have been misused to gag the media or compromise the autonomy of Denmark’s public service broadcasters.

In contrast, in other democratic nations, these statutes open a Pandora’s box of problematic implications, hinting at a potential drift into authoritarian waters. Take Costa Rica, where the 2012 amendment to the country’s Criminal Code under Law 9048 provoked an outcry from activists, who argued the provisions could erode online freedoms. Subsequent developments have only amplified concerns regarding media infringements. For example, mounting allegations of censorship have plagued SINART, Costa Rica’s public broadcasting network. Critics claim the organization has been reduced to a mouthpiece for President Rodrigo Chaves, further politicizing its coverage and jeopardizing its credibility.

So the inevitable question arises: where does this leave us?

Autocracy Rising: A Blueprint for Control

The deliberate exploitation of the disinformation narrative by governments to tighten their stranglehold over the media landscape, under the guise of public interest, has dire and far-reaching consequences—not merely for the press and the communication sector, but for society as a whole. Across the globe, regimes are increasingly fortifying their propaganda machineries while reengineering regulatory frameworks to muzzle independent journalism, all under the pretext of tackling disinformation.

Findings from the CIMA report underscore how anti-disinformation laws cast a long, chilling shadow over journalism, throttling press freedom at its core. These laws are predominantly tailored to benefit authoritarian governments, many of whom are mired in systemic corruption, abysmal track records on press freedom, and a glaring absence of accountability and transparency. They serve as telltale signs that these laws are crafted not for protection but repression, and chiefly designed to strengthen their propaganda systems.

Weaponizing disinformation as part of an autocratic playbook carries stark implications, including the slow and insidious erosion of public trust in the media. When officials bend and twist facts to fit their agendas, they not only corrode media credibility but also sow seeds of doubt and skepticism among the populace, tarnishing the reputations of genuine news outlets, something that has already been examined in many studies.

With the global communication sphere becoming ever more interlinked and digital borders disappearing, propaganda is poised to transcend boundaries with even greater ease, infiltrating societies far and wide and planting significant threats to democracy.

Compounding the challenge is the rise of a new cohort of authoritarian regimes eager to emulate influential players like China and Russia, whose massive international media networks shape dialogues and steer narratives with reportedly significant impact. This swelling tide only muddies the already turbulent waters of the global information ecosystem, which is increasingly teeming with manipulated truths and crafted falsehoods. To navigate these shifting currents is to reckon with an evolving world precariously chained to contested realities.

Democracy, Media Freedom and Public Integrity in Countries that Enforce Anti-Disinformation Laws

Africa

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index Rating	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Angola	State controlled	Not free	Hybrid regime	104	126	100	121
Benin	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	89	102	84	70
Botswana	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	79	114	73	39
Burkina Faso	Partly state controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	86	79	110	83
Cameroon	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	130	127	104	140
Chad	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	96	132	118	162
Côte d’Ivoire	Partly state controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	53	86	88	87
Eswatini	n/a	Not free	Authoritarian	85	n/a	n/a	130
Ethiopia	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	141	122	115	98
Gabon	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	56	136	n/a	136
Guinea	n/a	Not free	Authoritarian	78	n/a	n/a	141
Kenya	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	102	69	82	126
Lesotho	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	122	130	101	93
Madagascar	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	100	118	n/a	145
Mauritania	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	33	n/a	n/a	130
Namibia	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	34	116	80	59
Niger	State controlled	Partly free	Authoritarian	80	n/a	n/a	125
Nigeria	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	112	67	97	145
Rwanda	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	144	98	81	49
Senegal	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	94	82	91	70
Sierra Leone	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	64	81	109	108
Somalia	State controlled	Not free	n/a	145	n/a	n/a	180
South Africa	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	38	75	31	83
Sudan	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	149	n/a	n/a	162
Tanzania	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	97	87	105	87
The Gambia	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	58	n/a	n/a	98
Togo	State controlled	Partly free	Authoritarian	113	n/a	n/a	126
Uganda	State controlled	Not free	Hybrid regime	128	66	94	141
Zimbabwe	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	116	103	98	149

Asia

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index ranking	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Bangladesh	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	165	95	87	149
Cambodia	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	151	124	99	158
China	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	172	71	n/a	7/6
Kazakhstan	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	142	84	61	93
Kyrgyzstan	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	120	61	68	141
Laos	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	153	n/a	n/a	136
Malaysia	State controlled	Partly free	Flawed democracy	107	88	47	57
Mongolia	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	109	32	59	121
Myanmar	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	171	99	116	162
Nepal	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	74	76	72	108
Pakistan	State controlled	Partly free	Authoritarian	152	56	77	133
Philippines	State controlled	Partly free	Flawed democracy	134	55	63	115
Singapore	State controlled	Partly free	Flawed democracy	126	97	n/a	5
Sri Lanka	State controlled	Partly free	Flawed democracy	150	75	86	115
Taiwan	Independent	Free	Full democracy	27	30	n/a	28
Tajikistan	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	155	110	111	162
Thailand	Partly state controlled	Partly free	Flawed democracy	87	92	48	108
Uzbekistan	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	148	104	n/a	121
Vietnam	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	174	80	74	83

MENA

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index ranking	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Algeria	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	139	134	102	104
Egypt	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	170	123	89	108
Jordan	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	132	70	53	63
Morocco	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	129	113	79	97
Oman	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	137	n/a	n/a	70
Qatar	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	84	129	71	40
Syria	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	179	141	n/a	177
Turkey	State controlled	Not free	Hybrid regime	158	73	60	115
UAE	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	160	115	n/a	26

Europe

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index ranking	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Belarus	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	167	125	n/a	98
Bosnia & Herzegovina	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	81	64	66	108
Denmark	Independent	Free	Full democracy	2	46	1	1
France	Independent	Free	Full democracy	21	2	8	20
Greece	Partly state controlled	Free	Full democracy	88	60	56	59
Hungary	State controlled	Partly free	Flawed democracy	67	62	55	76
Malta	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	73	75	38	55
Moldova	Partly state controlled	Partly free	Flawed democracy	31	9	36	76
Romania	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	49	8	42	63

Latin America and the Caribbean

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index ranking	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Bolivia	State controlled	Partly free	Hybrid regime	124	96	92	133
Brazil	State controlled	Free	Flawed democracy	82	31	34	104
Costa Rica	Partly state controlled	Free	Full democracy	26	63	30	45
Cuba	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	168	142	n/a	76
Nicaragua	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	163	111	96	172

Oceania

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index ranking	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Australia	Independent	Free	Full democracy	39	72	12	14
Fiji	Independent	Partly free	Hybrid regime	44	n/a	n/a	53
Vanuatu	n/a	Free	–	–	n/a	n/a	61

Eurasia

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index ranking	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Azerbaijan	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	164	108	67	154
Russia	State controlled	Not free	Authoritarian	162	93	65	141

North America

Country	State Media Monitor	Freedom House	Economist Democracy Index	World Press Freedom Index	Transparency Index ranking	Public Integrity Index ranking	Corruption Perceptions Index ranking
Canada	Independent	Free	Full democracy	14	29	21	12
United States	Independent	Free	Flawed democracy	55	6	6	24

Sources: Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), CIMA, Freedom House, The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), Reporters Without Borders (RSF), European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building, Transparency International (TI)

Marius Dragomir is the Director of the Media and Journalism Research Center.