Sulochana Ramiah Mohan

A recent study tour organised by the European Union (EU) for senior Sri Lankan journalists to Belgium, Slovenia, and Lithuania brought into sharp focus the deep anxiety that grips Europe over disinformation, misinformation, and deepfakes. These three nations, small but strategically significant within the EU, have become front-line defenders against a rising tide of falsehoods that threaten democratic institutions, social cohesion, and trust in the media itself.

Across Europe, newsrooms have professionalised their approach to countering disinformation. Every major media outlet we visited had dedicated fact-checking teams linked to international verification networks. These teams work around the clock, scanning social media, cross-checking data, and debunking false claims before they gain traction. The emphasis on verification, accuracy, and transparency was striking.

In contrast, South Asian newsrooms, including those in Sri Lanka, face serious operational barriers — from limited financial resources and chronic understaffing to political interference and ownership bias. Many lack the infrastructure or independence to sustain consistent fact-checking initiatives. As a result, the region remains vulnerable to misinformation that spreads unchecked, often weaponised for political gain.

Yet even within Europe’s sophisticated systems, the media is not immune to controversy. The recent resignation of BBC Director-General Tim Davie and Head of News Deborah Turness shook the journalism world. The resignations followed revelations that a Panorama documentary had misled viewers by editing portions of a speech by former US President Donald Trump.

According to a Telegraph investigation, internal BBC memos suggested that segments were spliced to make Trump appear to have explicitly encouraged the 6 January Capitol riot. The revelation was damaging — not just for the BBC, but for the broader trust in global journalism.

Davie, in his resignation statement, acknowledged accountability, saying, “Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent, and accountable… There have been mistakes made, and as director general, I have to take ultimate responsibility.” The lesson is credibility demands constant vigilance and humility. Errors, when they occur, must be owned and corrected. Transparency, not silence, sustains trust.

At the Disinfo2025 International Conference held in Slovenia, European experts repeatedly emphasised how disinformation has become a weapon of modern hybrid warfare — with Russia frequently cited as the primary source of such operations. Lithuania and Slovenia, both with Russian-speaking minorities, are particularly exposed to narratives that attempt to undermine support for NATO and the EU, or to sow fear and division. On the Disinfo2025 it was also highlighted on Daily Sun recently. Their response is collaboration between government, media, academia, and civil society to strengthen resilience against false narratives. Fact-checking is viewed not merely as journalism’s duty but as a national security measure.

Following that conference, when this columnist wrote a feature highlighting how Lithuania’s Delfi news organisation combats foreign disinformation, an unexpected backlash came — not from Europe, but from the Russian Embassy in Colombo. The Embassy issued a lengthy media release, naming this writer and the Lithuanian outlet, accusing the feature of bias and demanding evidence for historical Western actions such as the US invasion of Iraq, NATO’s intervention in Libya, and the attacks on Syria and Iran. The statement also defended Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, describing it instead as a “reunification” following a referendum — and questioned why Western fact-checkers did not scrutinise such issues.

This reaction was both unnecessary and misplaced. It did not confront the matter that was discussed in the news feature. The feature in question focused purely on how European media counter disinformation — not on judging Russia’s geopolitical actions. The Embassy’s response, in effect, became an example of the very interference and deflection that disinformation experts warn against. By attacking a local journalist for covering international discussions on disinformation, the Russian Embassy crossed a line. One might ask: would a foreign journalist in Moscow be permitted to publish a critique of Russia’s media practices and remain untouched by official rebuke? It is doubtful.

The irony deepens when one considers that many journalists worldwide have written about the same subject. Yet, to date, there has been no visible reaction from Russia towards any of them. Why, then, single out a journalist from a small country?

This raises an uncomfortable truth that journalists from smaller nations are often more vulnerable to pressure because their countries lack the diplomatic weight or media muscle to push back. The message such responses send is troubling — that small-state journalists should avoid “big topics” or global debates that may displease powerful nations. That very vulnerability is what is explicitly seen here, and it underlines why press freedom must be defended globally, not selectively.

In its previous statement, the Russian Embassy also accused Western governments and human rights organisations of hypocrisy, citing their silence on Gaza and alleged double standards in addressing conflicts elsewhere. While such political arguments can be debated, they do not justify targeting an independent journalist for reporting factual content.

Journalism’s role is not to take sides in geopolitical disputes but to inform the public with verified, balanced, and contextual information. When diplomats resort to public denunciation of media professionals, they risk undermining the very principles of free expression they claim to defend. Let us be clear: disinformation and misinformation are not partisan issues. They are global threats that corrode societies from within. Whether in Europe, Russia, or countries in the South Asian region, false narratives manipulate public perception, weaken institutions, and fuel polarisation. The media’s responsibility, as the fourth estate, is to correct the record — not to create propaganda or shield any government from scrutiny. For this mission to succeed, journalists must be protected from intimidation, both domestic and foreign.

While Russia’s presence in South Asia is largely welcomed and many articles have been written highlighting its cooperation and long-standing friendship with the region, it must also learn to take criticism in stride. Healthy engagement means embracing open discussion — not suppressing it.

Ultimately, the message remains “Do not shoot the messenger”. The real challenge lies not in silencing journalists but in confronting the growing machinery of disinformation that distorts truth and divides humanity. The world does not need more propaganda battles. It needs courageous journalism — journalism that seeks facts, questions power, and serves the public interest above all else.

_____________________________________

The writer is the Deputy Editor of Ceylon Today, a Colombo-based English daily. She can be reached at [email protected]