Fighting Disinformation

In their values, laws, and practices, liberal democracies typically support freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and academic freedom. These freedoms are cornerstones of any democratic society and cannot be taken for granted, yet they are repeatedly assaulted—especially in countries marked by autocratization. In 2024, there were 91 autocracies and 88 democracies in the world, the first time in 20 years that autocracies exceeded democracies.¹ Assaults on science in countries such as Hungary and Turkey have been salient, as has the quick escalation in 2025 of the assault on academia and journalism in the United States. Although dozens of lawsuits (including several by the AFT) may eventually restore essential funding and freedoms in the United States, the Trump administration is working toward shutting down the US Department of Education and has been requiring schools and universities to terminate DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiatives, withholding funding to schools and universities, and canceling federal funding of research into areas such as climate change, LGBTQIA+ health, and disinformation.

As the article by Ruth Ben-Ghiat shows (see here), such assaults on freedoms are part of the authoritarian playbook. Time after time, authoritarian leaders assault academics and journalists to reduce their capacity to produce verified information and check leaders’ power. Scholars and professional journalists who want to uphold freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and academic freedom must actively resist authoritarianism.² But how?

My research is focused on digital media, journalism, disinformation, and fact-checking. This article is informed also by my personal and professional experiences. I’m Swedish but have lived in Norway and currently hold appointments at universities in Norway and Sweden—and I collaborate with researchers in the United States and beyond. Like other Nordic countries, Norway is known for scoring high on freedoms for the public, the press, and academics. Given current democratic backsliding in the United States, US academics, journalists, and concerned citizens may find Norway’s approaches to minimizing misinformation and protecting the public’s right to knowledge especially useful. Norway is a constitutional monarchy and well-resourced liberal democracy with a multiparty parliamentary system and high levels of trust between the government and its citizens.³ Comparative research of media systems has found that Norway has a strong news ecosystem marked by high news consumption and trust, with limited societal polarization and populism.⁴ Acknowledging the democratic backsliding and deterioration of journalism and academia in many other countries, these values and conditions are worth defending. What is Norway doing that others can learn from?

This article takes on a lens that journalism professor Ramón Salaverría and I have collaborated on: the reactive and proactive approaches. It starts by briefly discussing the reactive approach, which is associated with the growth of the fact-checking movement the past decade, and by briefly noting its decline in 2025 among fact-checkers dependent on third-party platform funding. (Fortunately, this does not include the Norwegian fact-checking organization Faktisk.) Because reactively countering disinformation is necessary but insufficient, I argue that it should be accompanied by proactively fostering a culture that values knowledge. This longer-term project forms the heart of any truly free and fair democracy. The article then zooms in on three key areas that are central to how Norway proactively works against disinformation: freedom of the press and the mediascape; freedom of inquiry, research, and higher education; and freedom of expression and public resilience.

Countering Disinformation

Disinformation refers to fake news designed to look like journalistic news, but it contains intentionally misleading elements and inaccurate information. Beyond merely aggravating, disinformation is a threat to democracy and the ideal of an informed electorate. It can undermine trust in institutions and expert knowledge, such as scientific research. Disinformation can polarize political discourse and influence both election outcomes and belief in those outcomes. It can also jeopardize safety and public health.

A diverse set of actors, including but not limited to politicians and others in power, produces and/or distributes disinformation for political and/or economic reasons. Disinformation and fake news is a genre, but it is also a label used by some politicians to undermine the credibility of legitimate journalistic institutions⁵ as well as fact-checking and academic research. In societies where bad actors have succeeded in undermining the credibility of knowledge-producing institutions such as journalism and academia, some members of the public may feel they do not know who to trust or what to believe. Critical thinking concerning sources and the accuracy of claims is obviously important, but it becomes extremely problematic when this results in the public discarding truthful and verified information. The public may become skeptical of everything, which essentially means disinformation is not differentiated from information.

With platforms such as Facebook shifting from professional fact-checking to community notes (like X), and newspapers such as The Washington Post adopting an opinions stance favorable to the Trump administration, people in the United States and around the world may be wondering what the role of verified information and accountability in online spaces will be.

Disinformation is a complex problem, but it can be mitigated. Much discourse around fighting disinformation revolves around how to mitigate the damage caused by the online distribution of false content by specific actors. Such discourse, and the actions associated with it, essentially means reacting to the production and distribution of disinformation contents. There has been a global rise of professional fact-checking institutions engaging in online debunking and political fact-checking over the past decade. The global rise in fact-checking was fueled by online platform companies’ fact-checking partnership programs, most notably those run by Facebook (now Meta, which also owns Instagram and WhatsApp) and TikTok.⁶ At the start of 2025, there were professional fact-checking organizations accredited by the International Fact Checking Network operating in more than 100 countries.

Professional fact-checking plays a significant role in reactively fighting disinformation. Research has found that the mere presence of professional fact-checkers in a country can have a positive effect, such as making politicians more cautious when stating claims in political debates.⁷ When Trump first became president of the United States, this coincided with Meta partnering with fact-checking organizations to address the spread of misinformation on its platforms. Eventually, both Meta and Twitter blocked Trump from their platforms. Amid the violent January 6 riots, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote on January 7, 2021, that the risks involved in allowing Trump to use its platforms were too great.⁸ Zuckerberg wanted to support a peaceful transition of power to the incoming democratically elected president.

In the years that followed, Elon Musk purchased Twitter, transformed it into X, and let Trump back onto the platform. Trump was also allowed back on Meta’s platforms. On January 7, 2025, exactly four years after Zuckerberg and Meta blocked Trump, Zuckerberg made an announcement that was very favorable to the incoming president: Meta would begin taking steps toward discontinuing its partnerships with fact-checking organizations.⁹ Politicians and pundits had argued that fact-checkers were not debunking disinformation but rather debunking truth and threatening freedom of expression. Echoing such discourse, Zuckerberg questioned Meta’s fact-checking partnership program for causing too much censorship and not aligning with freedom of expression. Zuckerberg announced that Meta would immediately initiate a process of closing down its third-party fact-checking program globally, starting in the United States.

Zuckerberg’s abandonment of the truth will have ripple effects as fact-checking organizations lose access to technological systems for disinformation identification on Meta’s platforms (e.g., the Facebook fact-checking product), and as many of those facing cuts in financial support will have to trim their headcounts or go out of business. For example, the only fact-checking organization in Sweden, Källkritikbyrån, operates with one full-time and a few part-time employees. Most of its funding comes from its partnership with Meta and hence will be severely affected if the contract is not renewed. In contrast, the professional fact-checking company Faktisk in the neighboring country Norway will hardly be affected.*

Faktisk was launched in 2017, and it is co-owned and funded by a diverse set of large news companies (VG, Dagbladet, TV 2, and Polaris Media og Amedia) and the national public service media institution NRK (i.e., the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation). Faktisk gains additional revenue from foundation funding, consulting, and its Meta partnership. As of 2023, Faktisk had 15 permanent employees, and a mere 0.3 percent of its annual revenue came from Meta’s third-party fact-checking program partnership.

Faktisk has institutionalized a professional fact-checking organization with diverse revenue sources that stands strong amid an age marked by authoritarianism. In countries like the United States that do not share Norway’s dedication to accurate information, disinformation can and should be countered by multiple actors such as the media sector, researchers, nongovernmental organizations, schools and colleges, libraries, policymakers who value truth, and governance bodies (such as associations that engage in quality control). To help such coalitions develop their strategies for combating disinformation, let’s take a look at Norway’s proactive approach beyond Faktisk.

A Proactive Approach

In 2024, Norway’s government announced that it would “present a strategy on how we can work systematically and long-term to ensure the Norwegian society’s resilience against disinformation.”¹⁰ And in 2025, it released a long-term strategy for strengthening resistance to disinformation, working on areas such as giving continued support to journalism; regulating online platform companies and how their algorithms amplify disinformation; assessing how social media impacts public debate; strengthening critical media literacy, including by supporting educators; and researching how disinformation spreads in Norway and its consequences.¹¹

This new effort builds on a report by the Freedom of Expression Commission that was published by the Ministry of Culture and Equality in 2022.¹² The report reinforced that freedom of expression is a fundamental value enshrined in the Norwegian Constitution, and that Norway works to maintain this value for the sake of its democracy. In the report’s English summary, the challenge of disinformation is discussed along with a couple of recommendations. Noting that “Statutory regulation of truth is problematic,” it calls for “international cooperation on regulating platforms on which falsehoods are disseminated … [and] transparency regarding the … [companies’] handling of misinformation and mechanisms for dissemination.” Considering planned attacks by rival countries, the report notes that “the Norwegian Government has proposed to make it punishable to cooperate on influence operations with foreign intelligence services,” and it calls for “clear frameworks … to avoid such penal provisions having an unwanted chilling effect on freedom of expression.”¹³

This is in keeping with debates in Norway about disinformation that have focused on the significant influence of platforms. In the commission’s ambition to regulate platform companies’ impact on Norwegian discourse, a key element is implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which was adopted by the European Union in 2022. The DSA is intended to bring accountability to platforms, make advertising more transparent, enhance protections for children, and help small platforms grow, among other priorities.

Relatedly, Norwegian intelligence authorities work to identify, monitor, and combat systematic disinformation and influence operations in the digital mediascape. An original study in which 12 people affiliated with Norwegian security agencies were interviewed found that they consider disinformation to be a societal problem; they asserted that disinformation makes it more difficult to have an informed citizenry and that tracking its spread in society is challenging (in part because of legal restrictions). Importantly, they grappled with a foundational problem: expanding their opportunities for surveilling online information would provide better ways to identify and fight disinformation, yet such surveillance would undermine the Norwegian democracy that they are trying to protect.¹⁴

The surveillance of online communication by authorities can jeopardize citizen privacy and journalists’ ability to protect their sources. There are ongoing debates about the tensions between extending digital surveillance capabilities and securing citizens’ privacy. For example, in May 2025, the Tinius Trust, which is the largest shareholder in Schibsted Media and works for its editorial independence, filed a lawsuit associated with Norwegian state surveillance of digital communication. It argued that the surveillance authorized under Norway’s Intelligence Service Act jeopardizes freedom of expression and source protection.¹⁵ (Norway is particularly cautious because it has a history of unsanctioned and controversial surveillance of citizen groups after World War II.¹⁶)

There are universally problematic tensions between state surveillance of information and disinformation flows vis-à-vis privacy, source protection, and freedom of expression. Norway actively works on addressing these tensions and on the challenges involved with the incredible power and data access that foreign platform and tech companies possess.

The Public’s Right to Information

Reactive approaches to countering disinformation are important but insufficient. The heart of the Norwegian approach is a proactive, enduring support for knowledge and expertise. Freedom of the press,¹⁷ freedom of inquiry,¹⁸ and freedom of expression¹⁹ are cornerstones of any democratic society. Norway is a role model in terms of press freedom in the world, and its freedom of expression, academic freedom, and democratic processes are sound. Proactively working to enable and protect these freedoms is paramount for sustaining democracy.

Let’s zoom in on three specific areas: freedom of the press and the mediascape; freedom of inquiry, research, and higher education; and freedom of expression and public resilience. The common denominator of Norway’s proactive approach involves placing the citizen and their knowledge and expertise at the center. Underlying principles are connected to the above-mentioned freedoms but also to the public’s right to information, which is supported in the Norwegian Constitution. In light of this, multiple sectors of Norwegian society work toward providing citizens with conditions and means to access verified and relevant information, as well as the knowledge, expertise, and critical thinking needed to assess information and sources.

Freedom of the Press and the Mediascape

In 2025, for the ninth consecutive year, Norway placed first in the global World Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders.²⁰ Norway is recognized as having a democratic corporatist model, characterized by a strong, protected press with editorial freedom and a professionalized media sector. The mediascape is diverse, thanks to strong socioeconomic conditions in general and in the media sector. There are expansive media policies that promote media diversity, digitalization, and universally accessible communication systems.

Norwegian publishers are represented by robust professional associations that uphold strong autonomy and editorial independence. They have developed and maintain a journalistic code of ethics, and they operate independently from the state through a self-regulatory system. The Press Council, working under the Norwegian Press Association, monitors news publishers and assesses their adherence to the professional code of ethics. This ensures that the Norwegian state remains uninvolved in influencing publishers’ independence and decision-making. Editorial freedom is also granted by giving sovereignty to editors-in-chief to make decisions.

Meanwhile, the Norwegian state exerts positive influence through its substantial financial support of the media. There are direct state subsidies to news publishers and for priorities such as innovation, distribution, and minority media. Working to maintain media diversity, the state gives added financial support to news publishers facing economic disadvantages. Three categories of newspapers are supported: local newspapers, smaller newspapers in markets with competitors, and niche newspapers. The Norwegian state also grants publishers exemptions from a tax that is normally added to products and services. While the business of journalism has gradually been worsening across the world, and Norway is no exception amid the sharp competition for online advertising revenue, news publishers in Norway manage relatively well thanks to state support and an overall interest among the people in supporting journalism. The annual Reuters Digital News Report has shown that Norwegians are less dependent on social media for news exposure than people in most countries. Norway scores very high on the relative proportion of the public that pays for online news; still, that’s only 42 percent.²¹

Overall, Norway maintains a mediascape featuring financially healthy, professionalized, and editorially independent news publishers from both the commercial and public sectors. The Norwegian public generally trusts journalists and news publishers, although alternative news media and media criticism certainly have grown over the past decade. Opportunities for news production that advances knowledge are further facilitated by legal frameworks granting access to public information from authorities, including but not limited to meeting records, email correspondences by state employees, and a multitude of public data repositories. Taken together, these proactive measures support informed citizens and thus contribute to their fundamental resilience to disinformation.

Freedom of Inquiry, Research, and Higher Education

Democratic countries typically prioritize and support their academic sectors and protect academic freedom (including researchers’ freedom of inquiry and ability to work independently). Support for academic freedom is vital for the pursuit and advancement of robust and systematic scientific knowledge, which should be crucial for decision-making by politicians, authorities, companies, and others. Unsurprisingly, authoritarian leaders and autocratic countries suppress freedom of inquiry and scientific discourse. Authoritarians engage in political control of academic institutions and researchers, censor research agendas and publications, and impose ideological conformity in curricula.

Authoritarian governments can undermine academic freedom by censoring scientific information, preventing its advancement and publication. When a government halts funding for research into areas such as climate change, African American history, LGBTQIA+ health, and fact-checking, the end goal is to disinform. Ultimately, this results in deliberate censorship of the production and distribution of scientific, credible information. Consequently, alarm bells ring when political actors seek to control the information environment by preventing the dissemination of independent and scientific information, such as by banning specific subjects, books, or terminologies from universities, curricula, and libraries—and thus from public knowledge. In contrast, countries that support academic freedom and the public’s opportunities for higher education seek to advance truthful and credible information and make it accessible to the public.

In most countries, accessibility to higher education is inexorably linked to one’s ability to pay tuition. The Norwegian higher education system is known for inclusivity and diversity and high academic standards: its public universities and colleges offer tuition-free education for all students and provide generous financial support in the form of loans and grants to cover living expenses. In 2023, 49 percent of the Norwegian population had attained higher education (ninth in the ranking of 38 countries).²² Altogether, Norway supports its public in higher education and in becoming informed, with its university education involving critical thinking, critical assessment of literature, and learning diverse methods and knowledge production.

Researchers in Norway have comparatively high academic freedom. There are structures, institutions, resources, and processes in place that help Norwegian researchers advance and publish research without direct political interference. Tenured faculty at Norwegian universities generally have a significant portion of their employment schedule dedicated to research, alongside their teaching obligations. Consequently, Norwegian scholars have the freedom of inquiry to pursue research in areas they find important and worthwhile. Meanwhile, due to limited budgets to support various research costs, universities are applying mounting pressure on Norwegian scholars to apply for research grants funded by external institutions such as the Research Council of Norway or the European Commission. Such grants provide increased opportunities for research through buyouts from teaching, resources for conducting data collection, and hiring of project research members.

The Research Council of Norway has funded many research projects over the years, including projects focusing on climate change, disinformation, and fact-checking. I worked on one such project from 2020 to 2024 with a team of Norwegian and American scholars. The project, titled Source Criticism and Mediated Disinformation (SCAM), had as its main objective “to develop principles for and practices of digital source criticism and media and information literacy in relation to emerging technologies, with special emphasis on detection and countering of disinformation.” My colleagues and I studied fact-checkers, news publishers, platform companies, and tech companies, focusing on key practices of fact-checking in an age of platformization. Ultimately, with support from the Research Council of Norway, the project resulted in collaborations with the fact-checking industry and dissemination of findings to journalism students and the public, along with numerous publications.²³

Freedom of Expression and Public Resilience

Norway established freedom of expression as a protected right in its 1814 Constitution and has revised and expanded this right in the 21st century. Norway supports freedom of expression through a diverse set of initiatives centered around media and information literacy (MIL). Norway’s proactive approach to MIL spans multiple sectors to ensure a well-informed and resilient public. There are initiatives supporting formal education in MIL, known in Norway as source criticism, as well as initiatives to raise public awareness. The Norwegian Media Authority (Medietilsynet) prioritizes MIL, promoting critical media understanding among the public. It employs staff with significant expertise in their fields, including an expert responsible for the disinformation sector. It conducts and commissions studies (and provides research grants) in areas such as MIL, media diversity, media consumption, and media technology. Study findings help inform policy decisions and regulatory developments in which the Media Authority also plays an advisory role. Additionally, the Media Authority offers lectures and workshops on disinformation at universities and schools, and participates in cross-sector projects on disinformation and fact-checking financed by the European Commission.

Similar to countries such as Sweden, the school system and libraries in Norway play a prominent role in advancing MIL among the public, making the people more resilient to disinformation. Norway’s overall digitization strategy for basic education establishes that school teachers should educate students to successfully navigate digital media and technology. The Ministry of Children and Families also focuses on assisting and educating children and young people, as well as their parents and the adults (including teachers) working with them, to navigate the digital mediascape safely. Moreover, resources are provided to Norwegian libraries and librarians to continuously update their knowledge and expertise in MIL. Librarians play an important role in teaching the public, especially adults and senior citizens, how to navigate the mediascape and develop critical thinking and practices in relation to disinformation.

Relatedly, in 2019 Tenk was established as “a hub of knowledge dedicated to strengthening young people’s resilience against the increasingly fragmented media landscape.”²⁴ Growing out of the Norwegian fact-checking organization Faktisk, but with funding from foundations and the Norwegian state, Tenk offers online MIL materials and resources for librarians, youth workers, parents, and guardians, along with courses and workshops on source criticism and critical media use. Another relevant online repository, offered in English (unlike Tenk’s materials) for greater accessibility to professionals and the public in Norway and beyond, is the “Guide for Digital Source Criticism.” This online handbook (which is available for free at go.aft.org/itf) was developed by my colleagues and me as part of our SCAM project discussed earlier. There were two key reasons for developing it. First, source criticism is essential for addressing the growing complexity of how knowledge is produced. Second, as the digital age brings new challenges, such as misinformation and changing media landscapes, it’s crucial to rethink how source criticism works, particularly regarding digital sources and the underlying systems that support them. The digital source criticism approach underscores the importance of interpretations, not only those associated with the sources and (dis)information being assessed, but also reflexivity around one’s interpretive frameworks.

Norway’s proactive approach centers its citizens’ freedom of expression and right to information. Because they are important for democracy, Norway maintains well-resourced, professional news publishers marked by editorial freedom and a strong university and educational sector. It also supports substantial efforts for advancing citizens’ media and information literacy, digital source criticism, and critical-thinking abilities. Altogether, these efforts result in an informed citizenry and resilience to disinformation. The proactive approach outlined in this article showcases how Norway has invested considerably over time in shaping a healthy information environment associated with both the media and university sectors.

Still, since Norway scores high on democracy, one may wonder: Can a proactive approach to disinformation be used in working toward a healthy democracy, or is a healthy democracy a prerequisite for an effective proactive approach? This is a daunting question to answer. While the full proactive approach does require government support over time, it is nevertheless possible for a diverse set of actors to work toward helping the public advance their knowledge and critical thinking.

In authoritarian takeovers, it is common to launch a concerted assault on universities and academic freedom as well as on news publishers and press freedom. Undermining evidence-based discourse from universities and independent researchers is intended to censor, cause self-censorship, and erode public access to reliable information for areas such as climate change. Authoritarian leaders also deliberately bypass journalism and journalists. Restricting journalists’ access to the government’s press conferences is one way to accomplish this; another is outright calling well-vetted news outlets “fake news” to undercut their credibility.

In Norway, and in all truly liberal democratic societies, governments and other actors work to sustain a society supporting the independent production and distribution of research and other verified information. Authoritarian countries, in contrast, attack verified information, devaluing knowledge and expertise. The end game is to cause the public to struggle to distinguish between reliable sources and disinformation. Where citizens’ “right” to access verified information has already been jeopardized, I call for concerted efforts to build their knowledge and expertise associated with media and information literacy in a digital mediascape.

Amid a global rise of authoritarianism, democratic countries must defend democracy and democratic principles before these are lost. In the fight against disinformation, I hope these countries will work together to create regulatory frameworks to further protect democracy and essential freedoms—including freedom of expression and the right to information.

Oscar Westlund is a professor in the Department of Journalism and Media Studies at Oslo Metropolitan University, where he co-leads the OsloMet Digital Journalism Research Group. He is the editor-in-chief of Digital Journalism. His award-winning research focuses on digital journalism, disinformation, fact-checking, and platforms.

*I am privy to this information through my work with both companies, and I have access to their annual financial reports. (return to article)

Endnotes

1. M. Nord et al., Democracy Report 2025: 25 Years of Autocratization—Democracy Trumped? (Gothenburg, Sweden: V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, 2025), v-dem.net/documents/60/V-dem-dr__2025_lowres.pdf.

2. O. Westlund et al., “Public Knowledge and Expertise Under Authoritarian Siege: A Defense of Academic Freedom from Digital Journalism Studies,” Digital Journalism 13, no. 5 (2025): 869–892.

3. K. Ihlebæk, T. Figenschou, and R. Olsen, “Chapter 11, Norway: Media Welfare in a Small Nation,” in Media Compass: A Companion to International Media Landscapes, ed. A. Schapals and C. Pentzold (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2024).

4. E. Humprecht, F. Esser, and P. Van Aelst, “Resilience to Online Disinformation: A Framework for Cross-National Comparative Research,” International Journal of Press/Politics 25, no. 3 (2020): 493–516.

5. J. Egelhofer and S. Lecheler, “Fake News as a Two-Dimensional Phenomenon: A Framework and Research Agenda,” Annals of the International Communication Association 43 (2019): 97–116.

6. V. Bélair-Gagnon et al., “Knowledge Work in Platform Fact-Checking Partnerships,” International Journal of Communication 17 (2023): 1169–89.

7. S. Steensen, B. Kalsnes, and O. Westlund, “The Limits of Live Fact-Checking: Epistemological Consequences of Introducing a Breaking News Logic to Political Fact-Checking,” New Media & Society 26, no. 11 (2023): 6347–65.

8. B. Allyn, “Facebook Bans President Trump from Posting for the Rest of His Presidency,” NPR, January 7, 2021, npr.org/sections/insurrection-at-the-capitol/2021/01/07/954453630/facebook-bans-president-trump-from-posting-for-the-rest-of-his-presidency.

9. M. Isaac and T. Schleifer, “Meta Says It Will End Its Fact-Checking Program on Social Media Posts,” New York Times, May 24, 2025, nytimes.com/live/2025/01/07/business/meta-fact-checking.

10. Regjeringen.no, “Regjeringen Setter i Gang Arbeid mot Desinformasjon,” Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Equality, Government of Norway, April 6, 2024, regjeringen.no/no/aktuelt/regjeringen-setter-i-gang-arbeid-mot-desinformasjon/id3033015.

11. Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Equality, Strategi for å Styrkje Motstandskrafta mot Desinformasjon (2025–2030) (Oslo, Norway: Government of Norway, 2024), regjeringen.no/contentassets/3efc37e03b6747bfa0806b8df44fb466/nn-no/pdfs/strategi_desinformasjon.pdf; and Regjeringen.no, “Regjeringen Setter i Gang.”

12. Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Equality, The Norwegian Commission for Freedom of Expression Report (Oslo, Norway: Government of Norway, 2022), regjeringen.no/contentassets/753af2a75c21435795cd21bc86faeb2d/en-gb/pdfs/nou202220220009000engpdfs.pdf.

13. Norwegian Ministry of Culture and Equality, The Norwegian Commission for Freedom of Expression Report.

14. R. Samuelsen, “Farlige Ord: De Hemmelige Tjenestenes Forståelse av Desinformasjon som en Samfunnstrussel,” Norsk Medietidsskrift 30, no. 2 (2023): 1–16.

15. Tinius Trust, “Pressemelding: Stiftelsen Tinius Anker Dommen i Saken om Masseovervåking,” May 5, 2025, tinius.com/no/nyheter/pressemelding-stiftelsen-tinius-anker-dommen-i-saken-om-masseovervaking.

16. Store Norske Leksikon, “Lund-Kommisjonen,” snl.no/Lund-kommisjonen.

17. Reporters Without Borders, “World Press Freedom Index 2025,” rsf.org/en/rsf-world-press-freedom-index-2025-economic-fragility-leading-threat-press-freedom.

18. K. Kinzelbach, S. Lindberg, and L. Lott, “Academic Freedom Index 2024 Update,” FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, March 2024, papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4818047.

19. Nord et al., Democracy Report 2025.

20. Reporters Without Borders, “World Press Freedom Index 2025.”

21. N. Newman et al., Digital News Report 2025 (Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute, University of Oxford, 2025), reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2025.

22. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators (Paris, France: OECD Publishing, September 10, 2024), oecd.org/en/publications/education-at-a-glance-2024_c00cad36-en.html.

23. Digital Journalism Research Group, “Source Criticism and Mediated Disinformation—OsloMet Research Project,” Oslo Metropolitan University, uni.oslomet.no/scam/about.

24. Tenk, “About Us,” November 14, 2024, tenk.faktisk.no/artikkel/about-us.

[Illustrations by Kotryna Zukauskaite]