Bangladesh flags ‘fake news,’ but critics see a bigger threat

When the Chief Adviser’s press office introduced a Facebook page to counter a barrage of falsehoods, it appeared a measured, pragmatic step to combat the tide of mis- and disinformation. 

The page — dubbed CA Press Wing Fact-Check — swiftly dismantled its first high-profile fabrication: a doctored Washington Post article purporting to report firing of thousands of military officials by Chief Adviser Muhammad Yunus. A striking red “FAKE NEWS” stamp across the fraudulent screengrab left no doubt as to its authenticity. 

In similar fashion, the page deployed the same technique to rebut a flurry of social media posts and misleading news stories. By emblazoning suspect stories or posts with the words “FAKE NEWS”, the government initiative ensured that even those who skipped its explanatory text would recognise the original post as false at a glance.

The press wing behind the chief adviser — with staff drawn from some of the nation’s leading media outlets — understood from the outset just how potent a “FAKE NEWS” stamp could be. Its head, Shafiqul Alam, formerly the Dhaka bureau chief for the AFP news agency, had previously overseen an in-house fact-checking unit. “Instead of issuing lengthy press releases or statements, we’re showing which information is misleading and in what ways,” Alam said in a telephone interview.

Yet the page soon grappled with a well-known constraint.

Within hours of its launch, the original name — “CA Press Wing Fact-Check” — had been quietly adjusted to “CA Press Wing Facts”, signalling, if subtly, that the government was wary of assuming the role of accredited fact-checkers who must adhere to clear, transparent standards. “This is definitely part of fact-checking,” Alam said, conceding, “But, of course, this is a governmental matter. We are presenting our position, presenting the facts, which is why we’re not labelling it with that term.”

Critics say the government thereby wields the power of a fact-checker without bearing the full responsibility that comes with such a role. “Governments do have a legitimate role in providing accurate information to the public and correcting misinformation,” said Angie Holan, director of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) — a prominent global body that grants credentials to fact-checkers following a rigorous process. “But government communications should be clearly labelled, and it’s best that they avoid the format and style of independent fact-checking organisations, to avoid public confusion.”

When statistics collide

Bangladesh’s foray into government-led fact-checking under the interim government is hardly unique. 

In 2019, the Indian government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarked on a similar project, only for it to be halted by the Supreme Court amid “serious constitutional questions” regarding free speech and press freedom. Ethiopia’s “Current Issues Fact Check” was criticised for disseminating propaganda during the Tigray conflict, and a Brazilian government initiative — Brasil Contra Fake — was found by an independent fact-checking group to lack transparency and lean almost exclusively on government sources.

Inevitably, Bangladesh’s new venture has been similarly contentious.

In late-December, Bangla Tribune published a report that indicated a rise in street crime — sensitive timing given that the interim government was already under fire for allegedly failing to contain an apparent surge in unrest after security forces had been overwhelmed during protests in July and August 2024. 

The interim government’s fact-check page responded by posting police headquarters statistics it claimed showed the exact opposite: a drop in robbery cases. It also marked screenshots of the Bangla Tribune report, as well as a similar story in The Daily Star, with a red “Misleading” tag.

While the Tribune did not protest, the Star, known for more stringent editorial standards, fired back. 

It pointed out that the government was referring only to cases filed under one specific law rather than two. The paper further argued in a statement that if August’s data — distorted by protest-related anomalies — were omitted, the government’s own figures would in fact show a slight increase in robberies from September to November 2024 compared with the same period the previous year. Rather than an outright inaccuracy, The Daily Star insisted this was merely a dispute over which months and which types of data should be considered. Nonetheless, the government page had slapped the report with its “Misleading” label.

That underscores the fissures when the government becomes “the arbiter of truth”, according to Karthika Rajmohan of the Internet Freedom Foundation – an Indian advocacy group that gained prominence for championing net neutrality. “Fact-checking by the government and subsequent stamping of information as ‘fake’ results in a significant infringement on the freedoms of speech and expression,” Rajmohan told Netra News.

The CA Press Wing Facts page also trained its sights on foreign news coverage. In January, it criticised The Indian Express for publishing quotes from absconding Awami League leaders in India, arguing that the newspaper had failed to verify their claims.

The Express did not appear to misattribute or fabricate the quotes. Standard journalistic practice distinguishes between reporting statements made by sources and independently verifying their accuracy. While the content of the leaders’ statements could be disputed, the newspaper’s role was to report what was said.

Rather than addressing the statements made by individuals, the government labelled the entire news articles as “FAKE NEWS”.

Similarly, the page sought to discredit social media allegations against the head of the Special Security Force, Mahbubus Samad Chowdhury, who was purportedly hosting a fugitive Awami League activist in a property he owned. Chowdhury’s spokesperson acknowledged the activist was indeed renting a flat at his apartment as a businessman and had been arrested there, but denied having prior knowledge of the tenant’s political identity. Based on the denial, the government’s fact-checkers categorised all other claims as “FAKE NEWS,” even though the underlying facts were uncontested. 

Rajmohan notes that, by selectively choosing which stories to address and relying solely on its own data and claims, the government risks turning its fact-checking platform into a powerful propaganda tool. “The state may very likely have an agenda to clamp down on dissenting opinions and information that casts it in a negative light,” she added. “They may also legitimise false information that furthers any narrative or perception they seek to establish.”

IFCN’s Holan cautions that the best solution is not to bar governments from telling their side of the story, but rather to insist on rigorous guidelines.

“The most critical element should be clear labelling of government information as official communication,” she said. “Governments should also respect the distinct role of independent fact-checking organisations by respecting press freedom and providing information promptly upon journalistic requests.”●