
In Indonesia, fact-checking initiatives have evolved into a distinct field within journalism practice. While there is abundant research on fact-checking in Indonesia, there is a need to explore the practice from a political economy perspective.
In December 2024, EngageMedia released a new report titled “The Political Economy of Fact-Checking in Indonesia: Understanding the Landscape, Expanding upon Criticism, Overcoming Challenges, and Ensuring Long-Term Sustainability.” The launch of the report in Jakarta, Indonesia, in collaboration with PSHK facilitated a discussion on the challenges faced by fact-checkers, the dynamics of misinformation and the complexities behind it through the lens of political economy, and further analysis on the innovations that can be made to support the sustainability of the fact-checking business model.
The event began with a presentation of key research findings, followed by a panel discussion and a Q&A session with the audience comprising journalists, fact-checkers, university students, civil society organizations, international organizations, and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.
Research Key Findings Presentation by Irma Garnesia
Report co-author Irma Garnesia raised some key findings related to the relevance of reconstructing the understanding of misinformation on fact-checking and all the challenges and impacts of its work in the Indonesian media landscape through the perspective of political economy. According to them, the fact-checking approach is no longer sufficient if it is still fixated on the dichotomy of “wrong” and “right” to correct individual behaviour because this has the potential to limit civic space and contestation of political discourse. Misinformation must be viewed in a multidimensional manner which, in the context of political propaganda, can become a tool of digital authoritarianism.
Phenomena like the Gemoy Campaign during the 2024 General Election illustrated how information muddle wrapped in influence operations—manipulation through social media to shape and influence individual beliefs and voter behaviour—covered up a series of problematic deeds of the candidates and successfully overshadowed the 1998 human rights violations case. As a result, disinformation about the dark history of 1998 did not reach the “TikTok generation.” A noteworthy question emerged: is this what can be called “misinformation without disinformation”?
Misinformation is also closely linked to people’s social narratives as commonly held values influence their interpretation of information. In essence, fact-checking has a significant role in building a healthy information ecosystem, including the media’s efforts to capture public attention and perceptions of certain groups or individuals and challenge the narratives circulating about those individuals.
Fact-Checking Business Model in Indonesia and its Sustainability
Currently, donor-based business models still dominate fact-checking initiatives in the country. Much of this funding comes from social media platforms, which raises concerns about the sustainability and credibility of fact-checking. These challenges are compounded by the fact that many fact-checkers are freelancers who have changed roles from other journalism topics or beats, and who may be facing limitations in training and capacity development.
Diving deeper into the hard work of fact-checking that has not been truly integrated into the Indonesian journalism and media industry, one participant highlighted the differences in fact-checking training at the central and local levels. The training offered at the central level often fails to address the challenges faced by local journalists, such as social, ethnic and political pressures in their respective regions. The sustainability of fact-checking in Indonesia depends on the infrastructure that supports its practice, be it funding, regulations, or the capacity of the workforce.

Fact-Checking, Digital Authoritarianism, and Information Governance
In this case, one of the panelists, Sherly Hariestya, brought up the importance of maintaining transparency among fact-checkers, saying that digital authoritarianism does not only originate from the government but also from brand deals and grantmakers supporting fact-checking initiatives. Maintaining credibility is critical since the fact-checking business model still heavily relies on giant enterprises. To uphold their accountability as one of the key pillars in fostering a healthy information ecosystem in Indonesia, fact-checkers could, among other measures, openly demonstrate their methods of processing information and clarify their categorization or nuances of wrong-right categories.
Raden Violla, the second panelist, also emphasized that in the context of elections, information and internet governance in civic spaces is actually complex. From a regulatory standpoint, the Election and Pilkada Law provides minimal guidance on regulating information throughout the election period. In fact, it is important to recognize that election campaigns and information dissemination are not solely about candidates and the “right” and “wrong” dichotomy, but also about fostering an accountable political education. Especially in the context of Pilkada, the complexity intensifies with the local dynamics that must be considered. In addition, Violla sees that fact-checking initiatives from the elections up to now still focuses on issues that seem to be a public favourite, thus forgetting other crucial issues.
Investigating information credibility and building a healthy information ecosystem has become increasingly challenging with the emergence of social media accounts that appear trusted or verified on social media platforms, but actually have no clear origin. The issue now extends beyond distinguishing “right” from “wrong” to include uncovering who is behind the dissemination of certain information, what kind of narrative patterns are used, and how the public views and interacts with these accounts. Achieving this requires substantial allocation of resources, including people and funds, but it also demands scrutiny of the extent to which certain grantmakers or social media platforms may be steering fact-checkers towards their agendas. Adding to this complexity, Violla also mentioned the existence of information disruption in the context of political elections, seeing that the distribution of information circulated in the public is not purely from each political candidate, but also their sympathizers, such as buzzers, influencers, and others.
Solutions and Ideas to Build a Long-term Healthy Information Ecosystem
In addressing these issues, enforcing regulations that account for these complexities must be done with caution to avoid silencing the public sphere or undermining freedom of expression, which could weaken democracy. Sherly underlined the importance of collaboration among diverse key stakeholders, such as academics and the government, to maintain a safe and inclusive digital civic space, in addition to seeing the issue of digital civic space within the framework of human rights, namely as digital rights. Information governance is now a structural and systematic problem that cannot be solved by solely taking down information that “disturbs the public”. The process of debunking or revealing who considers such information disturbing, who is behind the misinformation, what facts covered by the misinformation, among others, must be carried out. Political will and resource allocation to strengthen the practice of fact-checking beyond “true” or “false” are urgently needed.
The government, as the one who holds the highest authority and the power and funds to alter the information ecosystem, must always be monitored by civil society to ensure it fulfils its duties and responsibilities properly. Academics can work together with activists and civil society organizations or other stakeholders to further examine information governance and criticize patterns of information dissemination and spaces where misinformation can thrive in the public sphere. They must also have the courage to dig into the roots of the issue, including the individuals or groups involved. Social media platforms must take more responsibility , ensuring that their operations, policies and practices do not harm any individuals, communities, or democratic systems. In other words, the credibility of information that ensures a healthy civic space and democracy is a shared responsibility across various parties, not only fact-checkers, but also the government, social media platforms, and academics, among others.
Read the report in Bahasa Indonesia:
Read the report in English: