Why elections in Greenland are particularly vulnerable to misinformation

While working at the University of Greenland, my research examined how media and public debate in Greenland  function differently from those in larger societies.

Here are two key findings from that research that I believe are particularly relevant when considering the spread—and containment—of misinformation in Greenland—a country with significant international attention and an election around the corner.

Greenland’s Media Lack the Resources of Larger Societies

Greenland’s media landscape is small and resource-constrained. Unlike larger countries, where media organizations have dedicated teams for investigative journalism and fact-checking, Greenland’s newsrooms operate on minimal staff and funding.

The number of journalists is extremely limited, yet they are expected to cover a vast range of topics across multiple formats—including radio, print, and digital—and in two languages. Fact-checking and in-depth investigative journalism are rare due to time and staffing constraints. News production is costly, and producing a radio news bulletin for 56,000 people requires nearly the same resources as for 5.6 million. Public broadcaster KNR is struggling with internal challenges, further limiting its ability to report effectively.

The only other major news outlet, SermitsiaqAG, has much of its content behind a paywall, making it inaccessible to many ordinary Greenlanders. These limitations mean that social media plays an outsized role as an information source, but this comes with its own risks.

Greenland’s Tight-Knit Social Networks Amplify Information Rapidly

In Greenland, everyone knows each other—or at least knows someone who knows someone. This dense social connectivity makes the spread of information on social media extraordinarily fast.

In Denmark, social circles are more segmented—your football teammates don’t necessarily know your colleagues, who don’t necessarily know your extended family. In Greenland, these groups overlap significantly: your football friend might be your coworker’s cousin and your brother’s neighbor.

In Facebook terms, Greenlanders tend to have a high number of mutual friends, meaning fewer shares are needed before a significant portion of “Greenland-on-Facebook” has seen a post. This is particularly evident in breaking news situations—for example, if a landslide blocks a main road in Nuuk, most people will hear about it first through social media’s digital word-of-mouth effect.

On one hand, this is incredibly democratizing—it makes public debate more accessible. On the other hand, it allows misinformation to spread unchecked, especially when traditional media lack the capacity to correct false narratives.

When many people in your social circle share the same piece of information, it automatically feels more credible, even if it is false or misleading.

Misinformation and the Upcoming Greenlandic Election

Masaana Egede, editor-in-chief of SermitsiaqAG, recently told Politiken that he is deeply concerned about the spread of disinformation in Greenland. He pointed to three key factors contributing to the issue: highly emotional public debates, limited media resources for fact-checking, and a relatively low level of formal education among the population.

With the upcoming elections on March 11, misinformation poses an even greater threat as high political stakes make narratives more susceptible to manipulation. This makes it more crucial than ever to remain critical, vigilant, and aware of how disinformation spreads in Greenland—and who stands to gain from it.

Signe Ravn-Højgaard, PhD, is director of the Digital Infrastructure Think Tank, www.digitalinfrastruktur.dk .