When Misinformation Spreads Like Wildfire: What's the Responsibility of Government, Media, and Public?

by Shraddha Parajuli

Opinion: In today's fast-changing and hyper-connected media landscape, communication is no longer simply about what you say — it is about how you say it, when you say it, and how the public receives it. For emerging political leaders especially, this distinction is not merely strategic; it is existential.

In an AI-driven digital world, a single statement can be clipped, reframed, and ignited into viral controversy within minutes — long before any correction is possible. This is not just a personal risk. It is a deepening institutional challenge that demands urgent attention from governments, media organizations, and citizens alike.

The Fire Starts Fast

Consider a telling example from Nepal. When the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP) — which made a historic leap as one of the largest parties in the recent general election — hosted a two-day closed-session orientation seminar for its 182 newly elected Members of Parliament, fabricated content quickly surfaced online. Images and videos appeared to show MPs celebrating with whiskey. They were entirely fake: AI-generated, deliberately crafted to malign party leaders in the court of public opinion.

Fortunately, the deception failed to gain widespread traction. But the damage was not zero. Naïve social media users were exposed to the lie before the truth could catch up. And that is precisely the point — in the race between misinformation and correction, misinformation almost always gets the head start.

The world is struggling to craft policies that minimize AI misuse, yet technology continues to evolve faster than legislation, regulation, and public awareness can follow. We are, in many ways, governing with yesterday's tools in tomorrow's world.

A Personal Wake-Up Call

This reflection grew from a simple observation: watching a few trending videos and news clips and noticing how dramatically a headline or edited clip can distort reality. It raises an uncomfortable but essential question — how easily can perception be shaped, and how swiftly can it drift from truth?

For me, the answer became personal when I watched my 80-year-old mother confidently believe an AI-generated video of a cat cooking food. She was utterly convinced. Forty seconds of fabricated content was all it took to override her judgment. If a clearly impossible scenario can feel real to a viewer, imagine how effortlessly a political narrative — grounded in just enough plausibility — can mislead millions.

Even those familiar with technology sometimes struggle to distinguish the real from the fabricated. Misinformation, then, is not merely a technical problem. It is a social one — and we are all its victims, knowingly or not.

The Scale of the Problem

The numbers make this harder to ignore. Nearly 48% of Nepal's population is on social media, and approximately 56% is online, with the vast majority of digital activity concentrated on social platforms. Millions are exposed daily to trending videos and viral narratives. Yet over 90% of users regularly encounter misinformation, and an estimated 30–35% of online content may be fake or AI-generated — while digital literacy and verification capacity remain critically underdeveloped.

The result is a dangerous imbalance: high exposure, low verification.

Short clips are edited with sensational headlines. Opinion is packaged as fact. Algorithms reward outrage over accuracy. AI adds yet another layer, enabling the creation of realistic but entirely false content that spreads with alarming speed and conviction. This environment does not just confuse the public — it deepens societal divisions and destroys reputations in hours.

The Alteration of Intent

One of the most insidious patterns in today's media landscape is the systematic distortion of intent. A statement about "improving systems" gets reframed as an attack on institutions. A call to "review past decisions" becomes a story about political revenge. These subtle but consequential shifts manufacture fear, inflame political tension, and force leaders into defensive postures — often before they even realize what happened.

Media practices share responsibility here. But public figures are not absolved. Clarity, discipline, and precision in communication from elected officials are equally — if not more — critical. Leaders who speak carelessly, react emotionally, or treat every platform as an opportunity for unfiltered expression do not just risk their own reputations. They risk the credibility of the institutions and constituencies they represent.

What Leaders Must Do Differently

For emerging politicians, particularly in a post-election context, the stakes demand a more deliberate approach. Speaking without preparation, engaging impulsively on social media, or conflating personal opinion with official position can cause irreversible damage. In an era where everything is recorded, amplified, and archived, unfiltered communication is not authenticity — it is vulnerability.

What is needed instead is structure: clear messaging, calm delivery, trained spokespersons, rapid-response systems for misinformation, and communication strategies grounded in evidence and credibility. Fake quotes, altered videos, and recycled clips are no longer rare — they are part of the daily digital diet. Leaders must respond not with silence or panic, but with validated information delivered through trustworthy platforms.

For newer parties like the RSP, this moment is also an opportunity to build institutional resilience. Clear internal communication protocols, consistent messaging, media training, and fact-checking mechanisms are no longer optional extras. They are operational necessities. Many controversies we witness today stem not from media malice alone, but from partial information, emotional reactions, and institutional unpreparedness.

The Shared Responsibility

Ultimately, the burden of combating misinformation cannot rest on any single actor.

Governments must accelerate policy frameworks that regulate AI-generated content and deepfakes without suppressing legitimate expression — a difficult but necessary balance. Media organizations must recommit to editorial standards, transparency, and fact-based reporting, resisting the algorithmic pull toward sensationalism. Platforms must be held accountable for the ecosystems they profit from. And citizens must invest in digital literacy — the capacity to question, verify, and think critically before sharing.

Constitutional responsibility must also anchor public life. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right — in Nepal and beyond — but it exists alongside the responsibility to uphold dignity, privacy, and truth. Public figures must avoid unnecessary exposure of personal matters, refrain from unverified claims, and ensure their words remain rooted in fact.

The Way Forward

This is not a call to silence. It is a call to speak better — with purpose, precision, and accountability.

In today's environment, visibility without discipline can rapidly become liability. Political leaders have every right to be heard. But they also carry the responsibility to be understood correctly — and that requires intentionality, not just volume.

Be measured. Be accurate. Be intentional.

Because in a world where everything can be seen, what truly matters is being correctly understood.

About the Author:

Ms. Sharda Parajuli lives in California, USA.

Ms. Sharda received her Bachelor of Business Administration degree and double Master's degrees in Public Administration (MPA) from the Public Administration Campus in Kathmandu, Nepal, as well as a Master's in Business Administration (MBA) from Lincoln University in Downtown Oakland, California.

Read her previous article:

Nepal's New Political Landscape:

Hope Arrives, but Safety of Women and Children Remains the True Test