Media Literacy in Malaysia: A Vital Reliance on Network Confirmation

INTRODUCTION

In today’s highly fluid and uncertain information environment, individuals are increasingly required to remain vigilant towards any information they receive to avoid being deceived or manipulated. This is even more pronounced in Malaysia, a country whose media has long been subjected to authoritarian intervention and has struggled to become a trusted component in Malaysia’s information ecosystem. Without a reliable and dependable media, individuals must instead exercise media literacy: a set of skills and practices they use to check, evaluate and determine if the information or news they consume is correct.

Unfortunately, given the hectic pace of the current social media environment we inhabit, exercising these skills on a daily basis is onerous and impractical. The current push from most information literacy advocates is to enhance and expand media literacy training to ensure that everyone is equipped with these skills. There is however not enough research on how tenable this approach is.

This article presents the findings of a qualitative research project examining the media literacy practices of Malaysians across diverse demographic backgrounds. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 90 participants, the key questions explored in this study concern individuals’ media consumption habits, their levels of trust in different media sources, their awareness of misinformation and disinformation, as well as the various strategies they adopt to mitigate the risks associated with unreliable information.

The findings show that most participants are aware, at least at the basic level, of media literacy skills and recognise the presence of unreliable or false information in the media they consume. However, this awareness does not translate into them actively engaging in media literacy techniques such as fact-checking, source comparison or source verification. Many participants state that these practices are “too tiring”, “difficult” and “time-consuming” to do on a regular basis.

Rather than leaving themselves vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation, participants instead find other ways of verifying their news, for example, through the use of their social networks to assess the credibility of information.

While verification of information through social circles is acknowledged by many existing media literacy frameworks, it is often treated as a supplementary or secondary strategy. This suggests the need to reorient media literacy frameworks towards a more socially grounded understanding of verification, trust, and collective sense-making, which may offer a more realistic and fruitful approach to tackling the growing onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a qualitative research design based on in-depth, semi-structured interviews to examine media literacy practices among Malaysians. Data was collected from in-depth interviews with 90 Malaysians aged between 19 and 45 from across the country, selected to reflect diversity in ethnicity, geographic location, socioeconomic background, education level and political orientation. The interviews consisted of questions focusing on the political understanding and media practices of Malaysians, to determine the general differences in media literacy efficacy based on their political literacy. This includes their knowledge of local political systems, understanding of political ideologies, their daily media consumption habits, and how they process news from dubious sources.

The interview guide was organised into six thematic sections: (1) demographics and background, (2) personal values and beliefs, (3) political engagement, (4) political knowledge, (5) media ecosystem, and (6) echo chambers and cognitive dissonance. While the broader interview covered political behaviours of participants, this article draws mainly from responses in Sections 5 and 6, focusing on participants’ news consumption habits, level of trust in media, awareness of misinformation and disinformation, and strategies used to evaluate the credibility of information or news presented.

KEY FINDINGS

Impracticality of media literacy techniques

Participants are asked a detailed set of questions to assess how they obtain general and political news, how they consume news content (for example, if they read full articles or only headlines) and how they decide whether information presented to them is credible. Participants are also asked to reflect on how different media outlets present news and whether they feel that they are receiving a just picture of political events, and if the media they consume are truly objective. Furthermore, participants are asked about their level of awareness of what constitutes disinformation and misinformation and whether or not they come across such content in the media they consume. If yes, they are further asked how they protect themselves from it through various fact-checking practices. Questions also explore the level of credibility they maintain towards Malaysian media sources, perceptions of journalistic quality, media ownership and how media credibility in Malaysia could be improved.

The most frequently cited reasons for not practising media literacy regularly are a lack of time and the need for cognitive effort. Participants describe the process of fact-checking and source comparison as too tiring, cumbersome and difficult to sustain in a daily manner due to the constant flow of information.

Findings indicate that media literacy awareness among all participants remains consistently high. They demonstrate an ability to articulate how they navigate news environments, identify bias, and evaluate the credibility of information. In this study, news refers to new information encountered through digital platforms that comes from unfamiliar or unusual sources, may not be strictly political in nature, and more often than not, is provocative in nature and meant to evoke an emotional response. Media literacy includes checking sources, seeking alternative sources, and being mindful of political bias, etc.

Participants are also asked explicitly about their levels of trust in the media they consume. As participant P3 noted, “Now the news, usually you cannot just straight away believe it”, highlighting that Malaysians must be vigilant even with their most trusted media outlets. In response to questions about media fairness, objectivity and political interference, many participants express great cynicism about the quality of media reporting in Malaysia. While most do not suggest outright that Malaysian media are entirely unreliable, a common shared perception that media content cannot be fully trusted without additional verification is present throughout the study.

The most frequently cited reasons for not practising media literacy regularly are a lack of time and the need for cognitive effort. Participants describe the process of fact-checking and source comparison as too tiring, cumbersome and difficult to sustain in a daily manner due to the constant flow of information. Only a small fraction of participants who are media-savvy report that they consistently check any information they consume. Many participants, however, opt to wait and see whether similar information appears in more established or reputable media outlets before further sharing the content, as a strategy of verifying information rather than actively verifying information themselves.

A very small number of participants (3) explicitly state that they choose not to practise their media literacy skills despite possessing them. These individuals often cite a lack of time or motivation to do these verification checks as a reason for disengaging from verification practices. They also state that the limited personal relevance of engaging with current news greatly lowers the priority of verifying such information. For these individuals, the credibility of information is judged in a retrospective manner, with trust being placed on more mainstream or recognised media sources to publish similar information.

Socially Supported Media Literacy

A key finding from the study is that respondents with busy schedules who still want to verify the information they come across, turn to leveraging trusted social networks.

Participants report various socially-based practices they use for assessing the credibility of information they encounter online. Rather than relying on their own judgement, they recognise that certain social networks (particularly specific WhatsApp groups or contacts) have unique forms of expertise that they can mobilise to evaluate information. Such social verification is not confined to any single platform; participants used them across all social media platforms, but with a particular focus on private messaging applications such as WhatsApp.

The most common pattern involves participants reaching out to particular groups or individuals whom they perceived as knowledgeable, politically informed, media-savvy or who were particularly connected to public affairs. When they encounter information that is unfamiliar, participants would forward it to these networks for verification or for further clarification. These networks are composed of varied individuals, including friends, family, colleagues and professional contacts. How they leverage these contacts is highly dependent on the level of access they have to these networks.

They recognise that individuals have severe limits in trying to fact-check, verify news, and essentially play journalist just to feel comfortable about the news they consume. Newsrooms that do diligent fact-checking can accomplish this through access to fact-checking services, databases, or interns. The average person has a device, Wi-Fi and their regular day job to contend with.

To fill the gap, two social skills stand out: developing social awareness of how Internet comment sections work, and cultivating specialised social networks of varying expertise.

Internet Comment Awareness

Participants pay attention to user comments and reader responses as part of how they assess the credibility of any news or information they encountered online. This practice is most commonly reported in relation to social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram and TikTok, as well as comment sections that are available in news portals online. Rather than engaging deeply in a detailed manner with individuals’ comments, participants report that they scan the overall tone, patterns and points of contention across all comments as an indicator of whether or not information is credible.

While participants do not actively identify a standardised process or method of interpreting comments, many report that they navigate the reliability of a bit of information based on how it is received by others in the comments section. For example, when comments sections are characterised by confusion from the majority, participants take this as a signal that the information is largely unverified or incomplete. In this case, participants often pause before reading and accepting the information.

If the comments section shows most users being overwhelmingly supportive of a specific narrative, the survey participants tend to take that as an indication of potential partisanship rather than credibility. This prompts them to seek out alternative views or coverage from other sources to contextualise the information based on how it was received by different audiences. In some instances, participants note that over time, other users within the comment section would introduce additional context or information that is verified; this further helps inform their judgment.

Participants pay attention to user comments and reader responses as part of how they assess the credibility of any news or information they encountered online. This practice is most commonly reported in relation to social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter (X), Instagram and TikTok, as well as comment sections that are available in news portals online.

When analysing through the lens of age groups, some younger participants who are using more contemporary social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok and Twitter for news, intentionally maintain a Facebook account just to see what news is being presented to older folks and how they are processing it. Interestingly, this is a practice that many older folks do not practice in reverse. Participant P5 shares her reason for doing so in a humorous manner, “But (I use) Facebook also. I read (some) news from Facebook. (Usually, it’s aunties who are usually there). But it’s fun to see different perspectives besides the younger generation.”

Of course, this approach is highly esoteric and its usefulness depends a lot on the social awareness skills and aptitude of the person. Training this skill is more abstract in nature, making it difficult to develop a general approach that fits many. Even so, this approach fits perfectly within the confines and affordances of anyone deeply entrenched in social media etiquette and practices, and merely requires a re-articulation of media literacy in order to develop.

Social Network Cultivation

The findings indicate that participants are aware of the limits of their own knowledge and expertise when verifying and evaluating political news and information. Rather than assume that individuals can independently verify all information they encounter, many recognise that determining the credibility of a piece of information requires consulting with other parties they deem as more knowledgeable, politically informed or professionally connected to the media industry. While reliance on social networks is neither unusual nor new within many media literacy frameworks, the findings suggest that this practice is largely due to the recognition that individuals do not possess infinite knowledge and therefore must draw upon social connections to fill in the gaps.

Many of the participants try to identify either someone who is politically savvy or in the media, which would be their first stop in processing political news and information. Social consumption and protection of information appear rife amongst participants who consider themselves active on social media.

Participant P2 was one of several participants who organised their social groups into specific categories that would be useful when the verification of news was needed. He shared a sampling of the various social groups he inhabits and how that influences his verification process.

“(The) first step depends on the group. We have a lot of groups. Some are from our (political party) leadership groups. From (party) committee groups. Some are from the supporters groups, some are from public groups. So, [it depends] on which group we get the links and the news from, [and] if they shared things in the WhatsApp group or Telegram, with a link.”

While they are not quick to spread unverified news, they are quick to re-share this information to their networks once they receive verification, therein doing their part in restricting and limiting misinformation. The sanctity of the social network as a bastion for accurate and reliable information is something intuitively preserved.

Many Gen Z and millennial participants note how they each have a role in correcting misinformation in their family networks. Noting that older family members are the most egregious at sharing misinformation, a few intrepid participants make it a clear point to always reply by correcting information and reiterating warnings over rushing to share misinformation.

Antisocial Media Literacy

Considering the prosociality required to expand media literacy practices, conversely, an antisocial paradigm also exists for those who recognise the importance of being media literate but are unwilling to invest in social networks to make it work. A very small percentage of participants, who express little desire to practice media literacy, also appear to present themselves as information agnostic, meaning that current news is not important to them.

Among these, news is never so crucial and urgent that it needs quick verification, and they are always more than willing to wait until established media outlets verify the authenticity of the piece of news more thoroughly. They generally ignore any news or information that comes from non-news sources like social networks and social media.

Where they appear antisocial is in their decision to almost never share news (verified or not) on their social networks. In choosing not to be a potential agent in spreading misinformation, they have also chosen not to share any information at all, even with the intent of informing those around them.

While media literacy encourages people to consider carefully before sharing any information that is not verified, some media literacy frameworks do encourage sharing with others clearly verified information in order to fight against misinformation. So, the choice of not sharing any information can be seen as a regressive practice of media literacy where they recognise there is a social importance in verified information, but actively choose not to participate.

CONCLUSION

Malaysia’s highly diverse media environment is more a bane than a boon, forcing Malaysians to be highly vigilant against misinformation, unverified news and political rumours. Without a strong common faith in media institutions, socially supported media literacy appears to be the only way that Malaysians can trust the information they receive. It makes practising media literacy more palatable and practical in the long run, fitting well within the social media attention economy.

With these lessons in mind, it might be worth re-evaluating contemporary approaches to media literacy which have for too long been emphasising the centrality of individuals being media literate. These approaches have long been criticised for not being practical in day-to-day life. Thus, incorporating more social elements into the equation is a useful update to a tired and fading method.

Training sociality in media literacy is no easy feat, as further study is needed to ensure that social networks are leveraged in the right way and will not fall into the same misinformation traps. In Malaysia, at least, this method might have wide adoption, but it remains unclear if it is effective at fighting misinformation. Thus, a more structured approach to train and teach people to use it may be worth studying.

---

This is an adapted version of ISEAS Perspective 2026/19 published on 18 March 2026. The paper and its references can be accessed at this link.