Every day, our newsroom receives a flood of information: social media posts, viral memes, suspicious articles, and emotionally charged videos. Some of it is simply wrong, the product of honest confusion or carelessness. But some of it is carefully crafted to deceive. At CNA Verify, we investigate these materials, yet the process is far from instant. Our findings must still be checked, analysed, assessed, and reported by journalists who apply the same stringent editorial standards as the rest of our newsroom. That means no matter how exciting a lead looks, we stop before publishing. We verify sources, search for original context, speak to the right people, and challenge our own assumptions. The creative chaos of breaking news does not apply to our work. We operate with discipline because trust is at stake. What makes an investigation meaningful is not simply exposing a falsehood; it is understanding how and why that falsehood spread in the first place. In an environment where anyone can publish anything, our role is not to be first but to be right. When we do publish, readers can know that every claim has gone through a rigorous process. Behind every report are journalists who worry about being fair, who lose sleep over complex cases, and who understand that a single mistake can damage public confidence. The team is not chasing clicks; they are protecting people from manipulation. Each day, they sit with contradictions: a fake account can have thousands of followers, a disinformation operation can hide behind a slick website, and a lie can appear more credible than the truth. But the journalist’s job remains the same: to sort truth from fiction and to offer clear, evidence-based reporting. We are not immune to errors. If mistakes happen, corrections are issued promptly and transparently. This is what public service journalism looks like in practice. In a world overflowing with misinformation, such standards are our most important product. We invite readers to hold us accountable, because the pieces we publish are the result of long efforts, not guesswork. So when you see the CNA Verify label, you can trust that the material has passed through layers of scrutiny designed to protect you and the public interest.
Establishing who is ultimately responsible for a disinformation operation is particularly difficult. In some cases, there is no smoking gun and no mastermind. Those involved may conceal their identities, use intermediaries, or operate across multiple platforms and jurisdictions. Our investigators often feel like detectives who see footprints but no suspect. They can trace a network of coordinated posts, observe timing patterns, and identify repeated language, but they may not be able to prove who pulled the strings. This is an uncomfortable position for any journalist. We prefer certainty. But when absolute proof is impossible, we still apply the same standards: we present the evidence, explain what we know and what we do not know. In several investigations, the team found patterns suggesting coordinated activity without being able to establish definitively who directed it. That may sound frustrating, but it is intellectually honest. We refuse to speculate or create villains without evidence. Instead, we show our readers the behaviour, the connections, and the anomalies, and we let transparency do the work. By documenting such patterns, we help the public understand how disinformation operates. A single suspicious post can be dismissed as an outlier, but when we reveal the pattern behind many posts, the picture becomes clearer. The human dimension matters, too. The people behind these campaigns may be political operatives, scam syndicates, or foreign actors. They exploit real divisions and real emotions. They take advantage of fear, anger, and uncertainty. We must resist being used as a megaphone for their lies. Because attribution is so hard, we make our methods visible. We cite screenshots, metadata, open-source intelligence, interviews, and expert analysis. If patterns suggest coordination but not direction, we say exactly that. This may not satisfy those who want dramatic headlines, but it builds long-term credibility. In time, facts emerge. Other journalists, researchers, and regulators can build on our work. The fight against disinformation is not a sprint; it is a marathon, and acknowledging uncertainty is an essential part of responsible reporting.
Several of our investigations have already led to concrete action. This is important to note because it demonstrates that our work has impact beyond the article itself. Social media platforms have removed accounts flagged by CNA Verify. Websites falsely claiming links to Singapore institutions have gone offline. Questions arising from our reporting have been raised in parliament. These are not just victories for our team; they show that public service journalism can make a real difference in people’s lives. There are real people who might otherwise be deceived, defrauded, or manipulated. When a fake account is taken down, perhaps someone will not be tricked tomorrow. When a fraudulent website disappears, an innocent person may not lose money or identity. When parliament asks questions, policies can be reviewed and laws can change. We are not detached observers; we are motivated by consequences. Our investigations often take months. We start with a tip, a suspicious post, or an unusual network. We collect evidence, verify sources, and contact the platform or organisation for a response. We attempt to reach the people behind the operation. Sometimes they respond with threats, denials, or excuses; sometimes they remain silent. We continue because public interest matters more than convenience. We know that each removed account or closed website is only a small battle in a larger war. Disinformation networks regenerate, adapt, and find new places to hide. But the act of reporting establishes a record. It deters some actors, warns potential victims, and informs policymakers. The outcomes we have seen so far show that thorough investigative reporting can create accountability even in a murky digital world. This is the heart of public service journalism: pursuing truth not for profit or prestige, but for the public’s right to know. We are proud that our work has reached parliament and led to measurable consequences. But we remain clear-eyed. A takedown is not a cure. The underlying vulnerabilities remain. Our role is to keep monitoring, keep investigating, and keep telling the Singapore story with accuracy, courage, and humility.
Why are we committing newsroom resources to examine activities that may otherwise go unnoticed or unexplained? Because they have implications for Singapore and its people. Disinformation is not harmless. It can distort elections, undermine public health communication, incite racism, and break social cohesion. In a small, diverse country like Singapore, social harmony is fragile. Foreign actors and malicious groups can exploit existing cleavages to create conflict and distrust. Our newsroom believes that maintaining the trust of our audiences depends on accuracy, balance, context, and depth. Investigating disinformation is now part of that responsibility. For decades, journalists chased stories on the streets, in council meetings, and at press conferences. Today, we also have to chase stories through data, hashtags, and hidden networks. The disinformation ecosystem is an environment where lies can travel around the world in minutes. People may not have the tools to discern false from true, especially when disinformation mimics credible news. Our mission is to be their guide. This work requires significant resources: time, talent, digital forensics tools, and legal knowledge. We willingly invest because the cost of silence is too high. We also need to remember why trust matters. In a world of information abundance, trust is a rare currency. Every report we publish is a deposit into that account. One mistake can withdraw a great deal. That is why we are deliberately measured. We do not jump on every trend or feed every outrage. We focus on stories with genuine public interest. We balance speed and certainty, but certainty wins when there is a conflict. We know that our audiences may include skeptical readers. We do not ask for blind faith. We present evidence, sources, and reasoning. We explain how we reached our conclusions and what remains unknown. This transparency is our way of respecting readers’ intelligence. When we investigate disinformation, we are not telling people what to think; we are giving them the tools to think clearly. We are in service of a well-informed public, which is essential to democracy and to a healthy society. That is why this work matters, and that is why we are committed to continuing it.
The methods used to spread disinformation are constantly evolving, and we cannot afford to be complacent. One emerging area we are exploring is the deliberate manipulation of information used by large language models, sometimes referred to as “LLM poisoning.” Imagine asking an AI assistant about a news event and receiving a confident answer that is actually false. Many people now rely on AI-powered search engines and chatbots for information. They trust these tools because the answers are coherent and authoritative. But if disinformation actors have planted false or misleading material online, these models may retrieve and repeat it as though it were established fact. The dangers are obvious. Manipulated search results, fake citations, fabricated sources, and subtle shifts in public perception can all result from this new form of information warfare. Disinformation actors are exploring ways to exploit LLMs by creating apparently credible sources or flooding the digital space to influence AI-generated responses. Unlike a misleading social media post, information from an AI chatbot can reach users as part of a seemingly authoritative answer, without them being aware of its origins. It appears to have been synthesised from multiple trustworthy sources, but in reality it may be the product of polluted data. For the public, this is a new and confusing frontier. Our team at CNA is learning how to detect such manipulations. Admittedly, this is still a relatively new area for us. We are still learning and building our expertise. We do not pretend to have all the answers. In this fast-changing field, humility is crucial. We are asking important questions: What makes AI models vulnerable? How can we trace misinformation within systems that do not always show their sources? How can we protect our readers from being unknowingly misled? We are collaborating with technical experts, academics, and platform companies. But we also recognize that no single newsroom can investigate every disinformation campaign. The challenges are too vast and too complex. We must share our insights and learn from others. The next generation of disinformation may be faster, smarter, and more personalised. It can target individuals based on their own search histories and biases. The battle against it will require constant innovation and strong partnerships. We are preparing for that future, but we also need the public to be cautious and critical of everything they read online, even when the source appears to be an artificial intelligence.
That is why we hope to build relationships with like-minded teams in other Asia-Pacific newsrooms. We want to exchange knowledge, share techniques, and explore opportunities for collaboration. Disinformation does not respect borders, and neither should our efforts. By working together with other public service journalists in the region, we can share early warnings, compare notes, and develop common standards. A coordinated international response to cross-border manipulation is no longer optional; it is essential. Through our reporting, we hope to deepen public understanding of these disinformation operations. We want the people of Singapore to recognize patterns and ask tough questions. Education is our best defense. When someone understands how disinformation is produced and spread, they become less vulnerable to it. We also hope this work will give you another reason to place your trust in CNA. Trust cannot be demanded; it must be earned every day. We show our work, we admit limitations, and we keep learning. As journalists, we are human. We make mistakes, but we hold ourselves accountable. We know disinformation is a challenge that will continue to change, and that is okay. We are in this for the long run. The best response to a lie is not just the truth; it is also the courage to keep saying that truth clearly and patiently. We are not naive enough to think we can stop every falsehood, but we can make it easier for truth to compete. Each investigation, each correction, and each transparent explanation is a step in the right direction. We are grateful to our readers and community for their trust. We recognize that trust is not permanent; it is renewed with every story. That is why we commit ourselves to accuracy, balance, context, and depth. The disinformation landscape may change, but our purpose remains the same: to serve the public with honest, rigorous journalism. In return, we hope you will take what we produce, question it, and use it to make informed judgments. Together, we can build a society that is more resilient, more critical, and more connected to the truth.