Dear BP,
As the general election looms, one can detect an uptick in biased reporting and the printing of inflammatory statements by political hacks and agent provocateurs with one goal in mind: undermining our electoral process, discrediting the experience of public PRD officials, and generally casting doubt on the election outcome.
Although fair, unbiased, and highly credible international organisations have always observed our electoral processes, and the same will apply to the upcoming elections, there is a drumbeat of reporting and the reckless publication of unfounded statements by officers of the FNM and COI, designed to cast doubt on the outcome. That is, if the PLP wins, as expected.
If you want to see how dangerous these practices are, we can only look at what happened in the US during the 2020 Presidential Elections. An analysis of the reporting of that election found that “ Social and print media undermined confidence in the 2020 U.S. presidential election primarily by amplifying false claims of fraud, creating polarised information ecosystems, and spreading misleading narratives that contradicted verified election processes”.
According to Pew Research:
Social media played the most significant role in eroding trust in the election outcome. Several mechanisms were at work:
Rapid spread of viral falsehoods — Unproven claims of widespread fraud circulated widely on platforms like Facebook and Twitter immediately after Election Day. Many of these narratives originated from, or were amplified by, high-profile political figures, contributing to a sharp partisan divide in perceptions of election fairness.
Polarised information streams — Americans who relied heavily on social media for news were more likely to encounter and believe misinformation. Pew Research found that people who consumed news primarily through social platforms were exposed to different—and often more misleading—threads than those who relied on traditional outlets.
Echo chambers and confirmation bias — Social media algorithms reinforced users’ existing beliefs, making it easier for false claims to take hold within ideologically aligned communities.
Domestically generated disinformation — By 2020, misleading content produced within the U.S. far exceeded foreign interference in volume. This included manipulated videos, misleading statistics, and fabricated narratives about vote counting.
Amplification by political elites — Statements by influential figures helped legitimise misinformation, making it more likely to be believed and shared. Pew Research shows that using Donald Trump as a primary news source strongly correlated with belief in certain false claims: and
Print media did not spread misinformation at the same scale as social media, but it still played a role in undermining confidence:
Partisan framing and selective emphasis — Some newspapers framed delays in vote counting or litigation in ways that heightened suspicion, even when the underlying processes were normal.
Amplification of contested narratives — While many print outlets debunked false claims, others repeated allegations of fraud without adequate context, giving them legitimacy.
Polarised media diets — Americans who consumed news primarily from outlets with a strongly partisan stance were more likely to believe unproven claims about the election.
So, what does all of this mean to Bahamians?
The 2020 (US) election was widely verified as secure, but the information environment—not the voting process—became the battleground. Social media accelerated misinformation, while segments of print media reinforced partisan narratives, together undermining public acceptance of the certified results.
A report published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) found that “ The misinformation ecosystem contributed directly to events like the January 6 Capitol attack, which was fueled by false claims spread online.
There is nothing to suggest that the upcoming elections will be anything but fair. Political parties will all have their observers, as permitted by Bahamian law, and can challenge any perceived electoral improprieties. Yet despite many official reassurances, operatives of the FNM and COI, aided and abetted by a supine media, continue to spin a narrative that political fraud is afoot.
The threat of print media to the democratic electoral process is that, with Print Media, there is a slower spread, but misinformation can still occur through:
- Selective framing
- Omission of context
- Partisan editorialising
- Once printed, misinformation is harder to retract or correct.
We know from extensive peer-reviewed international research that misinformation during elections stokes public anger by eroding trust, amplifying fear, and convincing people that the system is rigged against them. It does this by creating doubt about election integrity, inflaming identity-based tensions, and spreading emotionally charged falsehoods that trigger outrage. Research by Common Cause notes that disinformation is often intentionally designed to provoke anger because anger is politically mobilising, and that it is used to mobilise certain voters through lies. Emotionally charged falsehoods—especially those involving betrayal, corruption, or danger—spread rapidly and reinforce outrage within echo chambers, and the political trope that the PLP is somehow treating illegal immigrants more favourably than Bahamians is a favourite tactic by the FNM and COI, ably assisted by the media.
There you have it; the research is irrefutable. What we are seeing from the FNM and COI mouthpieces is right out of misinformation tactics, which led directly in the past to deadly, expensive riots and public disorder. If the authorities responsible for public order are caught flatfooted, that’s on them.
Finally, I have expressed the view before that there is a very thin line between free speech and seditious speech. In my opinion, some of these scurrilous lies and assertions by the opposition forces have crossed the line and are encouraging violence. If it leads to disorder, I hope that there is quick, severe punishment.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Brown
