Strengthening information integrity during a crisis through communications

Last updated: 23 December 2024

The following guidance was produced by colleagues at the United Nations Department of Global Communications. For fuller guidance on crisis communications refer to the UN Communications Group Standard Operating Procedures “How to communicate in a crisis” (2017).

This tool includes a three-step checklist: Step 1. Review your communications strategy and look for areas of weakness; Step 2: Undertake basic detection and analysis; Step 3: Determine Course of Action. All three steps provide preliminary guidance and considerations for strengthening information integrity during a crisis through communications.

During times of crisis, organisations may be faced with a barrage of online information harms and threats, including misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and hate speech. While the volume and breadth of these incidents can be overwhelming, the following three steps will help you to strengthen information integrity during a crisis. Specifically, they will help you to:

Increase resilience to information risks (eg misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, hate speech)
Enhance detection and analysis capabilities
Strengthen mitigation and response measures
Provide a common approach to information integrity across crisis contexts

The steps below are just a starting point and do not address all aspects of detection, analysis and response. The effectiveness of these steps would be enhanced by having access to relevant data, dedicated and qualified personnel, and technological resources, including analysis software.

Step 1: Review Your Communications Strategy and Look for Areas of Weakness

Identify which communications objectives may be jeopardised during the crisis.
Identify which target audiences may be affected most by information harms and threats.
Identify which platforms are most relevant to reach target audiences during the crisis.

Address Weaknesses in Communications

Check if you have protocols in place for rapid fact checking and information sharing to assess whether claims against the UN are false for detection purposes or require further investigation or follow up.
Ensure you are aware of prior damaging narratives (e.g. grievances, allegations, failures) and existing critical and false narratives, and how they have been addressed in the past.
Ensure you and your teams practice good digital hygiene and implement basic security measures to reduce risks, including on their own digital and social media presence. This is particularly important for high-profile staff. Prepare boilerplate public messaging for use in the event of a breach that stresses that the organisation is taking action and that prioritises the privacy and security of any staff members who have been targeted.
Be aware of how the branding is used within your operating context. Where is the brand currently used and visible? What are the possibilities for counterfeit, falsified or misleading use of the brand?

Address Gaps in Detecting Information Risks

Avoid a narrow, communications perspective (echo chamber effect). Relying solely on algorithm-driven feeds may skew your perception of the possible risks and effects of harmful information. Take steps to have a broader view of the information environment.
Understand appropriate methodologies for quality data collection and correct analytical approaches.
Take into consideration your own assumptions and biases that can lead to a flawed interpretation of information.

RESOURCE

Checklist of Sensitive Content Moderation on Social Media

Developed as part of the Using Social Media for CBP Guide, this checklist provides considerations for operations to use when making decisions on what content should be included on UNHCR channels.

Step 2: Undertake Basic Monitoring, Detection and Analysis

The following actions will help you to detect and analyse information threats related to the crisis and enhance situational awareness to inform mitigation and response.

Maintain a Timeline

Maintaining a timeline of the crisis will help you to understand the context of information threats, enhance fact checking and help anticipate possible upcoming incidents. The timeline should ideally include:

Key events.
Official announcements, statements, responses.
Official statements from actors involved in the crisis (state and non-state).

Develop a Source List

Develop a source list by platform. It should include:

Accounts of official actors, including from government or conflict parties.
Trusted sources, including social media influencers with significant followings among key audiences.
Known information risks sources. This should be expanded utilising ABCDE analysis framework.

Utilise the ABCDE Framework

Understand Levels of Risk

Determine the difference between very low and low-risk isolated incidents versus high-risk incidents and possible adversarial narratives driven by possible coordinated efforts. For levels of risk, consider the pattern of behaviour and source(s), level of spread/reach (audiences and platforms), and effectiveness (evidence for possibility for offline or real-life action)

Very Low Risk	• Incidents (examples of content) include false, misleading or distorted information related to the crisis. While the potential for harmful influence exists, these incidents are isolated within the immediate, affiliated audience/network of the source and have not moved beyond this network. • Incidents may not be part of a broader overarching adversarial narrative. Source(s) may not demonstrate a pattern of harmful behaviour. • May require consideration for medium/longer-term comms planning but does not require further action
Low Risk	• Repeated incidents or a pattern of harmful behaviour that may be part of a broader overarching adversarial narrative. While the potential for harmful influence exists, the narrative is isolated within the immediate, affiliated audience/network of the source and has not moved beyond this network. • Does not have widespread circulation or has run past its attention cycle. • Does not provoke strong or emotional reactions from key audiences, does not lead to a spread of questions, concerns or confusion on this topic. • No immediate evidence that it is negatively impacting communications and work. • Requires sustained monitoring and consideration for medium/longer-term comms planning but does not require further action
Moderate	• Narrative has some circulation (repeated) including modest amplification or evidence of message adaptation to local worries or concerns beyond the immediate, affiliated audience/network of the source(s). • Some evidence that it is provoking strong or emotional reactions from key audiences, triggering some questions, concerns or confusion on this topic. • Anecdotal evidence that it is negatively impacting communications and work. • Requires consideration for medium-term comms planning but does not require immediate direct response.
High	• Narrative may target specific vulnerabilities, such as safety of staff or aid delivery. • Narrative is very relevant to immediate/current situation with potential real-life impact. • Has widespread & fast circulation, including amplification or evidence of message adaptation to local worries or concerns in multiple communities (e.g. call for protests/real life activity/incitement or threats of violence), particularly among key audiences. • Evidence that it is triggering strong or emotional reactions from key audiences, many questions, concerns or a lot of confusion on this topic. • Systematic evidence that it is negatively impacting communications and work immediately. • Evidence of potential to affect broader, wide scale understanding of an immediate/current situation (e.g. crossing over into mainstream news coverage or commentary with questions or confusion around activities). • Requires immediate attention/consideration for rapid response and short-term comms planning. For incitement/threats, may also require non-strategic comms response.

Red-flag Considerations for Determining High-Risk

Multiple incidents of the same information risk in a week (pattern of high engaging or highly shared incidents from different sources, across different platforms and languages).
Number of incidents of a information risks increasing week to week, increasing in engagement/shares over time.
Evidence of same information risks in different unrelated communities (breaking outside each echo chamber).
Same narratives repeating but with escalating rhetoric, becoming increasingly violent/aggressive.

Step 3: Determine Course of Action

Due Diligence Check

Be aware that information risks detection and continual exposure can skew perception and decision-making skills so it’s important to ensure that remain objective.
Be aware that this can also work inversely where legitimate criticism can be incorrectly understood as information risks.

Effective Response and Mitigation

Tailor communications to target audiences through the most relevant platforms. Effective engagement often entails:
- Being FIRST to reach those audiences.
- Reaching those audiences the MOST.
- Maintaining a position and voice as a TRUSTED SOURCE among key audience.
- Ensuring information voids are quickly addressed. Disinformation is effective in situations of NO REBUTTAL.
Focus on maintaining compelling narratives, utilising techniques that are most effective in the crisis setting for key audiences. Do more of what works and regularly assess effectiveness through performance monitoring.
Use your detection and analysis to prioritise high-risk narratives in a timely way.
Mitigate low- and moderate-risk narratives through consistent, authentic, quality content.
Offline outreach to key communities and constituencies is an important consideration.
Determine which non-communications colleagues should be alerted to high-risk narratives. For instance, if a security response is required due to threats to personnel.
Follow reporting procedures if you detect violations of social media platform policy.

RESOURCE

Influencers and How to Choose Them

Developed as part of the Using Social Media for CBP Guide, this factsheet provides relevant considerations for engaging influential social media accounts to address information risks.

Tips

Repeat, repeat, repeat compelling priority content and messaging. Remember most people will not see or hear most of what you put out so keep on saying it.
Time is of the essence. Content seen first is often what sticks. Disinformation actors tend to post quickly and often.
Use first-person video content and human images and stories where possible.
As the situation evolves, update and put out content and messaging that show the value and relevance of the organisation, taking a proactive rather than reactive approach.
Engage champions and messengers as appropriate.
Be sure to step away and take measures to protect your mental health.
Pause and take care before you react.
When addressing a information risks, take care not to repeat it.
Avoid bureaucratic/technical language that does not make sense to general audiences.
Be aware of the tone of messaging. Avoid the “us vs them” narrative trap, even if it gets engagement.