Journalism Under Siege: Panel Event Explores the War of Narratives in Sudan
Person uses a smartphone (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)
Report by Jared Wedge-Thomas
Long rooted in divide-and-rule tactics, hate speech continues to fuel the ethnic dimensions of Sudan’s conflict, where online rhetoric translates into real-world atrocities. An extension of Digihub Africa’s Hold Before You Send It campaign to counter online hate speech and harassment, the Misinformation, Propaganda, and the Battle for Truth in Sudan online panel event brought together activists, researchers and journalists. Representing Dabanga, Access Now, Build Up and The African Middle East Leadership Project (AMEL) they shared their expertise on the spread of disinformation and the erosion of independent media in Sudan.
‘Shutdowns as a weapon of control’
Access Now Advocacy Director Marwa Fatafta emphasised the role of communications shutdowns in facilitating atrocities committed by parties to the ongoing conflict. She explained that the warring parties wield the power to seize devices, damage servers and order telecoms companies to restrict access in part or all of Sudan. This often allows them to cover up atrocities, as Fatafta gave the example of the 2019 sit-in massacre in Khartoum.
Access Now documented four Sudanese communications shutdowns in 2025, most notably the ban on WhatsApp and communications blackouts surrounding El Fasher, during the RSF’s final assault on the city and the mass killings that followed. The severing of communications infrastructure in this way is not random nor accidental, Fatafta noted, they are a ‘method of warfare and intentional policy’.
‘An absence of information lifelines’
Radio Dabanga’s Amgad Abdelgadir pointed out that disinformation and biased narratives thrive in the absence of effective and independent media; Fatafta estimated that 90 per cent of Sudanese media infrastructure collapsed or was damaged since the conflict began, while some 80 per cent of journalists lost their work. With social media platforms filling the gap left behind, Abdelgadir argues that they ‘are no longer just mirrors in conflict, they have a role in shaping it’.
He reported that propaganda hubs, fake pages, influencer hubs have sprung up in the place of formal media, citing the example of ‘Report a Collaborator’ Facebook pages that have become popularised in areas retaken from RSF by SAF and Sudan Shield forces.
Abdelgadir explained that misinformation and hate speech are ‘two sides of the same coin’, with social media used to set the stage and ‘justify’ approaching atrocities which all too frequently take place along ethnic lines. ‘The same algorithms that amplify hate speech also amplify misinformation’ he stated, emphasising the need for readily available, unbiased and verified information for ordinary Sudanese. Highlighting Dabanga’s role as a lifeline for millions of people, Abdelgadir made the point that ‘independent journalism in Sudan is survival, not a luxury’.
‘An abundance of narratives in the absence of truth’
Information vacuums caused by the destruction of independent media allow for warring parties to push the narratives that legitimise their own strategies and bolster their popular support bases – often along dangerous ethnic lines. Hussam Abualfatah and Mahmoud Bastati of the nonprofit Build Up explained that both sides attempt to justify atrocities by claiming victims were aligned with opponents and use social media platforms to spread these narratives.
The two noted a discrepancy in the usage of platforms between the factions – with RSF being more present and popular on TikTok, and SAF making greater use of Facebook. ‘Civilian forces are notably absent from social media’ Abualfatah noted.
‘What’s happening is Sudan is going beyond social media’ Abualfatah explained; ‘there is a cost that is being paid by civilians in Sudan’.
Sudan is ‘the perfect incubator for disinformation’, as termed by AMEL’s Eilaf Mohamed. Her research on perceived and actual AI deepfake content in Sudan confirmed that, while AI deepfakes ‘sow confusion [and] promote belief in a falsified truth’, actual AI deepfake content is a relatively low risk. One of the greater concerns raised by Mohamed is that social media users and powerful actors refuse to acknowledge genuine content that does not align with their narratives, dismissing this as AI.
Similarly, Abdelgadir pointed out that AI generated ‘suffering videos’ deepen distrust in real footage, allowing users to negate the harm befalling groups they perceive to be their opponents.
As a result, ‘instead of disinformation shaping belief, disinformation is shaped by existing belief’ Mohamed explains.
Whilst technical solutions such as AI detection tools and platform regulation may sound promising, Mohamed argues that changes in user behaviour in the form of increased Media and Information Literacy is the best weapon against disinformation. Empowerment of users to conduct their own fact-checking using verified sources combined with an increased capacity for critical thinking and self reflection are, she argues, the best means to reduce the spread and harm of misinformation and disinformation online.
Until such a shift can occur among the millions of Sudanese active on social media, online misinformation, disinformation and hate speech will continue to shape the real-world dynamics of Sudan’s conflict.
and then