By SK Usman, mni fnipr
At a time when conflicts increasingly extend into the information domain, truth, verification and critical thinking remain essential safeguards. In this contemporary era where digital platforms allow information to travel instantly across the globe, people must cultivate the habit of questioning sensational claims, verifying contents, sources and exercising restraint before sharing such unverified material. Informed and responsible communication is vital to limiting the spread of propaganda and maintaining clarity in an environment often clouded by competing and biased narratives.
In periods of armed conflict or contentious disputes, such as we are currently witnessing in several parts of the world, the war is not fought only on the battlefield; it is also waged vigorously in the information space. Propaganda, misinformation and disinformation have become powerful tools used by parties to a conflict and, increasingly, by their sympathisers and supporters across the world. Through social media platforms, messaging applications and online messaging fora, unverified claims, fabricated quotes, manipulated images and exaggerated battlefield reports are circulated at extraordinary speed, often reaching millions of people before the truth has a chance to catch up.
This phenomenon is not new. Throughout history, governments and warring parties have used propaganda to shape public perception, influence morale and gain strategic advantage. However, the digital age has significantly amplified the scale and speed of such information warfare. A single unverified message posted online can quickly be replicated across multiple platforms, sometimes presented as insider knowledge or attributed to well-known personalities, analysts or journalists and seemingly credible sources in order to create a false sense of credibility.
It must also be acknowledged that both local and the global information ecosystems are complex. Even so-called official communications or reports from reputable media organisations are not always completely neutral. Editorial framing, institutional interests, national perspectives and geopolitical alignments can sometimes influence how events are presented or interpreted. In this regard, the famous observation by the Canadian media scholar Marshall McLuhan that “the medium is the message” remains highly relevant. The platform through which information is conveyed can shape how that information is shared, perceived, interpreted and ultimately believed.
Unfortunately, many circulating messages contain gross exaggerations, misleading narratives or outright falsehoods designed to provoke emotional reactions, deepen divisions or project a perception of victory or victimhood. In several instances, statements are falsely attributed to respected individuals, while dramatic claims about military successes, destruction of strategic assets or secret operations are circulated without any credible evidence. In many cases, these forms of information disorder are deliberately crafted to appeal to existing beliefs, prejudices or ideological biases of audiences, making such narratives easier to accept and more likely to be shared without verification.
People therefore need to exercise caution and develop the habit of critical information consumption. Before accepting or sharing sensational claims about any contentious issue or the ongoing conflicts, it is important to look out for several warning signs that the information may not be genuine.
First, credible information usually has a traceable and verifiable source. If a statement cannot be linked to a recognised publication, official communication, reputable media outlet or the verified platform of the person being quoted, there is a strong possibility that it has been fabricated or manipulated.
Second, exaggerated or absolute claims should raise suspicion. Messages that assert that one side has completely destroyed the opponent’s capabilities, achieved dramatic victories overnight or inflicted massive damage that is somehow being “hidden from the world” are often characteristic of propaganda rather than factual reporting.
Third, the tone and language used can also provide clues. Genuine analysis is usually measured and evidence-based. In contrast, propaganda messages frequently contain inflammatory language, insults, excessive emotional expressions and sweeping conclusions intended to provoke strong reactions rather than promote understanding or say the truth.
Fourth, one should be cautious of messages that claim the global media is deliberately hiding the truth while presenting the writer as the sole source of “real information.” Major military developments, infrastructures or assets particularly those involving strategic installations or large-scale attacks, are extremely difficult to conceal in today’s interconnected world and would normally attract the attention of multiple international observers and analysts.
Finally, advances in digital technology have introduced new forms of deception. Artificial intelligence tools now make it possible to generate deepfakes, fabricated audio recordings and convincingly altered videos, while old or unrelated footage is sometimes repackaged and circulated as evidence of current events. These developments make it even more important to carefully scrutinise dramatic images and videos before accepting them as authentic.
In an environment saturated with competing narratives and emotionally charged claims, discernment has become an essential civic responsibility. By pausing to verify information, questioning sensational claims and resisting the impulse to amplify unverified content, people can help reduce the spread of propaganda and contribute to a more informed and responsible public conversation.
SK Usman, mni fnipr is a Public affairs analyst,and PR expert, wrote this piece from Abuja.
