{"id":4539,"date":"2025-12-24T15:16:20","date_gmt":"2025-12-24T12:16:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/factcheck.lt\/?p=4539"},"modified":"2025-12-24T20:54:57","modified_gmt":"2025-12-24T17:54:57","slug":"fake_vs_disinformation_telegram","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/factcheck.lt\/eng\/news\/fake_vs_disinformation_telegram\/","title":{"rendered":"The language of propaganda: how word choice reveals intentions","raw":"The language of propaganda: how word choice reveals intentions"},"content":{"rendered":"

TL;DR<\/strong><\/p>\n

We analyzed nearly 12,000 posts in Belarusian Telegram channels from 2025 to determine which termfake<\/strong> or “disinformation”<\/strong>It’s more often used to describe false information, what topics dominate, who Belarusian media accuse of creating false information, and what role toxic propaganda channels play.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Methodology<\/strong><\/p>\n

Data source:<\/strong>Belarusian Telegram channels.
\nPeriod:<\/strong>January 1 \u2013 December 23, 2025
\nVolume:<\/strong>8,912 “fake” publications + 2,942 “disinformation” = 11,854
\nMethods:<\/strong>Frequency analysis, thematic classification, contextual analysis of sources, temporal analysis, identification of toxic channels
\nRestrictions:<\/strong>Doesn’t automatically distinguish between channel ideologies; doesn’t take sarcasm and quotations into account.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part 1. Quantitative Analysis<\/strong>
\nThe first thing that strikes one when analyzing nearly twelve thousand Belarusian Telegram posts for 2025 is the radical disparity between the two terms. The word “fake” appears three times more often than “disinformation”: 8,912 posts versus 2,942. This ratio remains stable throughout the year, fluctuating between 2.5 and 4 times depending on the month.<\/p>\n

Term frequency by month in 2025:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

The reason for this imbalance lies in the nature of the words themselves. “Fake” is a borrowing from English that has become firmly entrenched in colloquial speech. It’s short, emotionally charged, and requires no intellectual effort from the reader. When a channel writes, “Beware, fake!”, the audience instantly understands the message: they’re trying to deceive you. “Disinformation,” by contrast, sounds bureaucratic and detached. It’s a word from the lexicon of official documents, press releases, and analytical reports.<\/p>\n

Distribution of publications and reach by term:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Indicator<\/th>\nfake<\/th>\n“disinformation”<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Total coverage<\/td>\n26.5 million<\/td>\n15.0 million<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Average reach<\/td>\n2,974<\/td>\n5,103<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Median reach<\/td>\n433<\/td>\n447<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Unique channels<\/td>\n1158<\/td>\n659<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Term ratio dynamics by month:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Interestingly, despite a smaller number of posts, the term “disinformation” demonstrates a higher average reach\u20145,103 views per post versus 2,974 for “fake.” This is explained by the fact that “disinformation” is more frequently used by large news channels with large audiences, while “fake” is evenly distributed among hundreds of small and medium-sized channels. A total of 1,256 unique channels used at least one of the terms, with 561 channels using both words, indicating a deliberate choice of terminology based on context.<\/p>\n

Top 10 channels by use of each term:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Distribution of publications by time of day<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Distribution of publications by day of the week<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

A time analysis of publications reveals a characteristic work rhythm: activity peaks between 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM, with a noticeable decline on weekends. This is not a pattern of spontaneous information dissemination. A particularly characteristic time lapse during the lunch period is observed for publications containing the term “fake.”<\/p>\n

Publications about “fakes” and “disinformation” are created by professionals during work hours, which in itself indicates the organized nature of information campaigns.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part 2. Thematic analysis<\/strong>
\nIf quantitative analysis answers the question “how much,” then thematic analysis reveals “what.” And here, the differences between the two terms become truly revealing.<\/p>\n

Thematic distribution of publications:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

Key difference:<\/strong>“Fake” is more often associated withfraud<\/strong> (27% vs 14%), and \u201cmisinformation\u201d – with geopolitics<\/strong>: The West (49% vs. 24%), migration (30% vs. 11%), military issues (48% vs. 33%).<\/div>\n

“Fake” is strongly associated with everyday deception. More than a quarter of all publications containing this word are related to fraud: phishing emails, fake sweepstakes, cryptocurrency schemes, false bank notifications. This is a practical, understandable threat. When a state-run channel warns about a “fake mailing on behalf of the tax authorities,” it acts as a protector who cares about citizens. Such content is legitimate and useful\u2014no one will argue that people need to be protected from scammers.<\/p>\n

What are they discussing?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Topic<\/th>\nfake<\/th>\n“disinformation”<\/th>\nInterpretation<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Propaganda\/Media<\/td>\n97%<\/td>\n95%<\/td>\nBoth terms are about media<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Russia<\/td>\n37%<\/td>\n51%<\/td>\n“Disinformation” is more often about the Russian Federation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Western countries<\/td>\n24%<\/td>\n49%<\/td>\n“Disinformation” = “Western threat”<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fraud<\/td>\n27%<\/td>\n14%<\/td>\n“Fake” = everyday deception<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Migration\/Borders<\/td>\n11%<\/td>\n30%<\/td>\n“Disinformation” about borders<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

“Disinformation” exists in a completely different semantic field. Almost half of the publications using this term mention Western countries, NATO, or the United States. A third are related to migration and borders. It’s a word from the arsenal of geopolitical rhetoric, a tool for describing external threats. When the channel writes about“Western disinformation”<\/i>, it appeals not to the reader’s personal experience, but to their political identity.<\/p>\n

The difference is especially noticeable in the context of military topics. “Fake news” about the army is usually a refutation of specific rumors: there will be no mobilization, exercises are proceeding as planned, a video of “Belarusian tanks on the border” was filmed in another country. “Disinformation” in a military context is a narrative about information warfare, about the enemy’s systematic attempts to undermine the country’s defenses.<\/p>\n

It could be said that “fake news” operates at the micro level: an individual post, a specific message, a single instance of deception. “Disinformation” is presented at the macro level, a concept of organized hostile activity. The choice of term signals to the reader at what level they should perceive the information: as an isolated incident or as part of a global confrontation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Part 3. Who creates the “fakes”?<\/strong>
\nAn analysis of the publications’ context allows us to answer the key question: who are the Belarusian media accusing of creating false information? The answer turns out to be unexpectedly asymmetrical.<\/p>\n

Who creates fakes and disinformation (according to the publications’ authors):<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The main culprit:<\/strong>In both cases, they are in the leadTelegram channels<\/strong>as a source of false information. But there are important differences:<\/p>\n