The public has supported the media’s efforts to stay independent. Within a month
of the coup, exile media had 43% of all views. By 2026, that figure had risen to 70%.
Public engagement also increased with likes rising from 40% to 64%, shares from
53% to 79%, and comments from 63% to 76%. Rather than losing their audience,
exile media became more relevant, as many people saw their reporting as more
independent, credible, and unbiased.
6.4. Declining public interest in impartiality
The public’s boycott of the military narrative has also involved a shift away from
impartial media. While outlets with a more impartial editorial stance have
maintained a regular number of posts (-3%), reach has declined by -70%. Public
engagement with impartial media has also declined, with likes, shares, and
comments dropping by -26%, -86%, and -71%, respectively. These rates of decline
are similar to amounts seen by pro-military outlets.
The public’s growing avoidance of the digital public square’s middle ground weakens
media pluralism and undermines people’s ability to form opinions freely. As
impartial spaces decline, propaganda, disinformation, and polarised narratives
crowd out balanced debate, eroding shared understanding and increasing
vulnerability to manipulation.
6.5. Increased polarisation
Audiences have shifted from impartial media to
24% of all views are now
more partisan outlets, deepening polarisation in
of highly partisan media
public debate. People with moderately anti-military
opinions increasingly turn to strongly anti-military
media, while those with pro-military opinions
cluster around strongly pro-military outlets. As a result, 24% of all views are now of
highly partisan media, up from 18%. Since the coup, their proportion of shares
doubled to 21%, and their comments tripled to 22%.
As audiences move toward strongly pro- or anti-military media, highly partisan
content gains reach and engagement, weakening balanced debate. While this may
initially foster political solidarity on both sides, it ultimately deepens polarisation,
fragments the public into “echo chambers”, and limits access to diverse perspectives.
Often amplified by platform algorithms’ “rage-farming”, this undermines the right
to form opinions freely, harms democratic debate, and weakens social cohesion,
encouraging conflict.
Page 20 of 24