Listen to the article
The Dual Role of Governments in the Disinformation Era
In 2013, Romanian public radio journalist Radu Dobrițoiu created a documentary about the Romanian military’s first post-World War II battle. The film highlighted General Nicolae Ciucă’s leadership of a Romanian infantry battalion during the 2004 battle of Nasiriyah in Iraq, depicting his troops successfully navigating intense combat without casualties.
This heroic narrative helped propel Ciucă’s career to impressive heights, eventually leading to his appointment as Romania’s defense minister and later prime minister. There was just one problem: the entire story was fabricated.
A Romanian journalist revealed in 2022 that Ciucă had not only plagiarized substantial portions of his doctoral thesis but had completely invented his role in the battle of Nasiriyah. The actual battle occurred a year earlier and involved U.S. Marines and Iraqi forces, not Romanian troops. Despite these revelations, Ciucă’s political career continued unscathed. Even more troubling, Dobrițoiu, the journalist behind the fabricated documentary, later became an advisor in Ciucă’s defense ministry.
This case exemplifies a growing global trend where political leaders not only spread disinformation but also implement policies ostensibly designed to combat it—while simultaneously using those same policies to silence critics and independent media.
Recent research from the State Media Monitor paints a concerning picture: over 84% of the 601 state-run media companies studied across 170 countries lack editorial independence, effectively functioning as government propaganda outlets. Collectively, these organizations control nearly 7,000 media assets worldwide, including television and radio stations, newspapers, news agencies, and online portals.
The prevalence of state-controlled media correlates strongly with anti-disinformation legislation. Data from the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) shows that between 2011 and 2022, 105 laws were enacted globally to combat “misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information,” with 91 introduced between 2016 and 2022 alone. A significant surge occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, with 36 new laws.
Notably, more than 90% of countries implementing such legislation operate state-controlled or partly state-controlled media systems. This suggests these laws often serve a dual purpose: while publicly presented as safeguards against falsehoods, they frequently become tools to strengthen government control over information ecosystems.
The pattern becomes even clearer when examining democracy indices. Among the state and public media outlets analyzed, almost two-thirds operate under authoritarian regimes. When “flawed democracies” are included, this figure rises to over 73%. Conversely, only two-thirds of the 26 editorially independent state media outlets are based in full democracies.
Regional patterns are equally telling. In Latin America, nations like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua maintain firm government control over major media outlets. Asia houses some of the world’s most centralized media systems, with China, North Korea, Laos, and Vietnam exercising extreme authority over their respective media organizations. In the Middle East and North Africa, a staggering 96% of the 86 media outlets operate under state influence.
The correlation between media independence and press freedom is unmistakable. Most editorially independent, state-administered media operate within nations that rank highly on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, including Denmark, Canada, Costa Rica, France, Australia, Moldova, Taiwan, and the United States.
Similarly, a connection exists between public integrity and media independence. Independent state media tend to prevail within countries ranking high on the Public Integrity Index, suggesting these governments respect editorial independence. The same pattern holds for corruption perception, with independent public media most commonly found in nations with low corruption levels.
What raises deeper concerns is the spread of anti-disinformation laws to countries traditionally celebrated for press freedom and democratic values. While over 43% of countries enacting these laws are authoritarian regimes, similar statutes have appeared in full democracies like Canada, Australia, Costa Rica, Greece, France, Denmark, and Taiwan.
The impact varies considerably. In Denmark, legal measures introduced in 2019 criminalize disinformation that aids foreign state actors in influencing Danish public opinion, yet these provisions haven’t demonstrably undermined press freedom. By contrast, Costa Rica’s 2012 amendment to its Criminal Code drew criticism for potentially threatening internet freedom, with the country’s public broadcaster SINART reportedly becoming a government mouthpiece in recent years.
The consequences of weaponizing disinformation policies extend far beyond media regulation. When authorities distort facts to serve political agendas, public trust in information sources erodes. Regulatory measures targeting dissenting voices create a chilling effect on free expression, curtailing open dialogue and suppressing diverse opinions.
As the global information ecosystem becomes increasingly interconnected, authoritarian regimes are joining established players like China and Russia in developing international media operations designed to influence public discourse across borders, further complicating an already complex landscape muddied by manipulation.
The study of disinformation has traditionally focused on external actors or non-governmental sources. However, this research highlights the urgent need to examine how governments themselves actively perpetrate disinformation while simultaneously using anti-disinformation rhetoric to suppress independent journalism and critical voices.
As state-controlled propaganda machines continue to expand alongside regulations that stifle press freedom, the distinction between fighting disinformation and enabling censorship becomes increasingly blurred—a development with profound implications for democratic discourse worldwide.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
This case illustrates the paradox of governments both combating disinformation while also being complicit in its spread. The fact that the journalist who fabricated the story later became an advisor in the same ministry is particularly troubling.
You raise a good point. The revolving door between media and government is a major contributing factor to the disinformation problem. It allows officials to exploit the media for their own interests with little oversight or accountability.
This is a troubling case that highlights how governments can be complicit in the spread of disinformation, even using the media to bolster the careers of officials. It’s concerning to see fabricated narratives being used for political gain with no accountability.
You’re right, it’s deeply troubling when government officials use false narratives and propaganda to advance their careers. This case demonstrates the need for stronger checks and balances to prevent such abuses of power.
It’s deeply concerning to see how political expediency can override the truth, even to the point of fabricating military exploits. This case underscores the urgent need for greater transparency and accountability in government to combat the spread of disinformation.
Absolutely, the lack of consequences for this blatant fabrication is very troubling. Governments must be held to the highest standards of integrity and honesty, rather than being allowed to manipulate the narrative for political gain.
The case of the Romanian military commander’s fabricated war story is a disturbing example of how governments can be complicit in the spread of disinformation, even to the point of elevating such individuals to positions of power. It’s a troubling indictment of the systemic issues at play.
Absolutely, this case underscores the need for much stronger oversight and accountability mechanisms within governments to prevent such abuses of power and manipulation of information. Without these safeguards, the public’s trust in institutions will continue to erode.
This story is a sobering reminder that governments can sometimes be part of the disinformation problem, not just the solution. The fact that the journalist who fabricated the story later became an advisor in the same ministry is deeply concerning and suggests a troubling lack of checks and balances.
You’re right, the revolving door between media and government is a major contributor to the disinformation crisis. It allows officials to exploit the media for their own interests with little oversight or accountability, undermining public trust in both institutions.
This story highlights the complex and often contradictory role governments play in the fight against disinformation. On one hand, they claim to be combating the spread of false information, but on the other, they are actively contributing to it through the actions of officials like the Romanian commander.
You’re right, the duality of governments’ approach to disinformation is deeply problematic. If they are unwilling to hold their own officials accountable for fabricating information, how can the public trust their efforts to address the broader disinformation crisis?
The story of the Romanian military commander who fabricated his role in a battle is a sobering example of how governments can contribute to the proliferation of disinformation. It’s alarming that he faced no consequences despite the revelations.
Agreed, the lack of accountability for this high-level official is very concerning. It suggests a systemic issue where governments are able to manipulate narratives and evade scrutiny, which undermines public trust.