This report examines how the fact-checking activity of the EDMO Belgium-Luxembourg hub (EDMO BELUX) has addressed disinformation over more than four years, comparing two phases of the project. It draws on fact-check articles published through the hub between December 2021 and October 2025, and aims to describe recurring patterns and shifts in how the hub’s fact-checkers have covered narratives, actors and platforms - not to characterise misinformation in Belgium and Luxembourg as such.
A key added value of this dataset is its coverage of fact-checking content in Luxembourgish, rarely represented in international disinformation research. Belgium’s multilingual, multicultural media landscape also means disinformation narratives can circulate across French-, Dutch-, German- and English-speaking spheres, often shaped by neighbouring countries and wider transnational media ecosystems.
Collecting fact-checks over an extended period makes it possible to observe how the hub’s coverage has evolved over time, rather than focusing only on short-lived viral incidents. This helps identify both persistent themes in that coverage - such as health misinformation or geopolitical conflicts - and emerging dynamics, including the growing presence of synthetic and AI-generated content.
Important caveat: the fact-checks analysed here are not equivalent to the full body of verification work carried out by AFP, RTBF, RTL Luxembourg and DPA - they are the subset each organisation chose to share through the EDMO BELUX hub. This report cannot establish whether the patterns identified reflect the actual prevalence of disinformation narratives, actors or platforms in the Belgian and Luxembourgish information space; it can only describe what this particular, partner-selected dataset shows about the hub’s own fact-checking coverage. Broader claims about misinformation “trends” in Belgium and Luxembourg would require independent validation against partners’ full output.
The remainder of this report first describes the dataset and analytical framework, including its limitations. It then examines the main narrative categories addressed in the hub’s fact-checking coverage, the actors most frequently referenced, and the platforms most often cited. The conclusion summarises the findings and outlines priorities for future monitoring.