Fact-Checking During Wartime: Navigating Propaganda, Perception and Truth

In an era of perpetual information warfare, fact-checking has become not only a journalistic responsibility but a geopolitical issue. Especially during wartime, when disinformation becomes both a tactical and strategic weapon, discerning fact from fiction is not a simple task. The complexity of wartime narratives requires more than technical scrutiny — it demands a critical, pluralistic mindset capable of parsing information from multiple sides. The Western liberal myth of [its own] “objective journalism” falls apart under the pressure of global conflict, and fact-checking must rise to meet a more nuanced challenge: truth is never one-sided.

The Weaponization of Information in Modern Warfare

From the Cold War to the current multipolar tensions, particularly the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, information has been as decisive as infantry and artillery. War reporting is no longer conducted solely by correspondents on the ground; it now occurs in real-time across social media, think tanks, and state-sponsored media outlets. The result is an echo chamber effect, wherein narratives are constructed, amplified, and sanitized to fit ideological lines.

In recent conflicts, Western media has overwhelmingly adopted a univocal stance, especially regarding its geopolitical enemies, like Russia, China and Iran. Terms like “unprovoked invasion,” “aggression,” and “dictatorship” are used abundantly, without deeper historical or geopolitical analysis. Using this kind of language reduces a complex, multi-layered conflict to something simplistic, where the reader or viewer is immediately handed a rigid ideological framework: these are the friends, those are the enemies.

At the same time, Russian and alternative media sources are often dismissed as “propaganda,” thereby eroding any potential for meaningful comparative analysis.

The reality is far more complex. Propaganda is not an exceptional phenomenon but an integral part of modern state policy — employed equally by Washington, Brussels, Kiev, Moscow, Beijing, and other key global players. An effective fact-checking methodology must acknowledge this fundamental nature of propaganda and recognize its presence across all major political centers.

The Comparative-Source Method: Toward a Comprehensive Approach to Fact-Checking

One proposed solution to the crisis of wartime information is what we can call the Comparative-Source Method. It does not aim for traditional neutrality — instead, it acknowledges the inevitability of bias and uses the triangulation method (comparing and analyzing multiple sources) to identify it, ensuring a more objective and comprehensive assessment.

Step 1: Identify the Event

Begin with a specific, verifiable event that appears across multiple sources. This may be a reported bombing, troop movement, diplomatic meeting, or casualty figure. Define the event clearly and isolate its parameters — when, where, who, and how.

Step 2: Trace Original Sources

Always check whether the media outlet is referencing primary evidence—video, official statements, or on-the-ground reporting—or simply citing another media source. When possible, trace the event back to the original footage, satellite imagery, or testimony. Open-source intelligence (OSINT) tools can assist in this regard, but the interpretation of their results is often subject to bias or manipulation.

Step 3: Selection of Sources Representing Diverse Perspectives

Gather reports from at least three ideologically distinct sources:

One aligned with Western perspectives (e.g., BBC, CNN, Reuters);
One Non-Western aligned (e.g., RT, Sputnik, CGTN, PressTV);
One non-official, alternative (e.g., Grayzone, Consortium News, social media influencers, Asian or Latin American outlets).

Avoid relying solely on Big Media/Big Tech “fact-checkers,” which often act as gatekeepers of approved narratives rather than impartial analysts.

Step 4: Analyze Language and Framing

Examine the language each source uses to describe the event. Who is blamed? What adjectives are employed? Is the actor described as “defending,” “attacking,” “responding,” or “provoking”? These terms reveal embedded assumptions and geopolitical allegiances.

For example, a missile strike by Ukraine on Russian territory might be termed “retaliation” in Western media, but “aggression” in Russian sources. Fact-checking in this context means not choosing one term over the other, but understanding why each outlet uses the term it does.

Step 5: Examine Consistency Over Time and the Historical Context

A key marker of propaganda is inconsistency. Reliable outlets maintain a coherent narrative over time, even if it evolves with new information. Watch for sudden reversals or shifting moral justifications in reporting.

Also, it is always necessary to appropriately assess the historical context behind the news. For example, without understanding key events in Ukraine, the DPR, and LPR from 2014-2022, Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) initiation could be misinterpreted as unprovoked aggression rather than a response to evolving security dynamics

Case Study: The al-Ahli Hospital Explosion and the Battle of Narratives

One of the most controversial events in the ongoing Gaza War was the deadly explosion at the al-Ahli Arab Hospital in October 2023. Initial reports claimed hundreds were killed, and accusations over responsibility emerged almost instantly. The fog of war thickened not due to a lack of information — but because of a flood of conflicting narratives, each aligned with broader geopolitical interests.

Applying the Comparative-Source Method reveals the complexity behind the headlines:

Western-aligned media outlets (BBC, CNN, The New York Times) initially echoed statements from the Gaza Health Ministry blaming Israel for the strike. However, soon after, many walked back or revised their coverage after the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) presented intercepted audio and drone footage allegedly proving that a rocket from the militant group Islamic Jihad was responsible.
Non-Western outlets (Al Jazeera, Al Mayadeen) continued to assert that Israel was behind the strike, pointing to the scale of destruction and the historical pattern of Israeli airstrikes on civilian infrastructure. These sources often accused Western media of quickly adopting the Israeli military’s narrative without proper scrutiny.
Alternative voices (unofficial media, OSINT investigators) offered a mix of skepticism and ambiguity. Some questioned the reliability of IDF evidence; others emphasized inconsistencies in official timelines or the improbability of such extensive damage being caused by a malfunctioning Palestinian rocket. Several independent journalists also highlighted the choreographed shift in narrative by Western outlets as politically motivated.

Was it an Israeli airstrike? Possibly. Was it a failed Palestinian rocket? Also possible. What is certain is that each faction instrumentalized the incident to bolster its moral legitimacy — either portraying Israel as a reckless aggressor or Palestinian groups as endangering their own people.

It is worth noting, however, that Western media outlets largely failed the «consistency over time» test (Step 5) outlined in the Comparative-Source Method. Initial headlines widely reported Israeli culpability based on early statements from Gaza’s health authorities. However, after the Israeli military released its versions and evidence, many of these same outlets revised their coverage significantly, shifting the narrative to one that favored the Israeli version of events.

This rapid pivot, often without transparent explanation or acknowledgment of the initial framing, highlights a key marker of information weaponization: a flexible narrative structure that adjusts in alignment with strategic alliances, rather than evidentiary integrity. Such inconsistency undermines public trust and suggests that even major media institutions are susceptible to external pressure and geopolitical bias in their reporting.

In such a context, fact-checking does not lead to absolute assurance, but to an understanding of how power shapes the perception of truth itself.

Beyond the West: multipolar journalism and the future of truth

Fact-checking in wartime cannot be separated from geopolitics. The uncritical acceptance of Western sources as «reliable» reflects a neocolonial mindset wherein non-Western voices are presumed to be deceptive or subordinate. To break this paradigm, we must embrace a multipolar epistemology — one that values diverse perspectives, especially from the Global South and Eurasian spheres.

The only way to verify information properly in the so-called «post-truth era» is through the mental liberation of all peoples from Western-imposed paradigms. Recognizing epistemological diversity and expanding sources, readings and worldviews as much as possible is the only possible way to get closer to the truth in a time of profound transformations.

The rise of a multipolar world demands a multipolarist attitude in the broadest sense, which includes journalism and access to information as a whole.

Conclusion: toward a new ethics of verification

In times of war, the first casualty is not just the truth — it is the possibility of truth under conditions of narrative monopoly. Fact-checking must go beyond data verification; it must become a philosophy of skepticism, plurality, and methodological rigor. The Comparative-Source Method offers one pathway toward this goal.

Only by acknowledging that all sides engage in propaganda — and that no single media sphere has a monopoly on truth — can we begin to reconstruct a more honest and multipolar information landscape. In this sense, wartime fact-checking is not just about getting the facts right; it is about resisting the weaponization of truth itself.