A conversation with comms experts on how to tackle mis, dis and malinformation

Social media makes it quick and easy for the public sector to share information and connect with people, but it also makes it easier for false information to spread. For organisations trying to manage that while keeping community trust intact, it’s a growing challenge.

In a recent podcast discussion with the Local Government Chronicle, communications experts Matt Nichols (Head of Communications Improvement at the Local Government Association), Jake Morgan-Stead (Head of Digital Campaigns and Communications at Lambeth Council), and Helena (Head of Community and Collaboration at Orlo) sat down to chat about the reality of social media storms, the anatomy of false narratives, and practical strategies for public sector comms teams on the frontline.

The conversation was rooted in local government, but the pressures they described, and the strategies for handling them, show up wherever an organisation is dealing with the public: in health, education, housing, emergency services – in fact, they span the width of the public sector.

So, here is a summary of what was discussed, who said what, and the key takeaways for navigating mis, dis and malinformation, wherever you are in the public sector.

To effectively combat digital threats, you first have to understand what you are up against. Matt kicked off the discussion by setting clear definitions for the “three heads” of false information:

• Misinformation (The Mistake): False information shared without the intent to mislead. The person sharing it genuinely believes it to be true.
• Disinformation (The Dishonest): False information created and shared deliberately to mislead, cause harm, or manipulate.
• Malinformation (The Malicious): Factually true information weaponised or used out of context in a damaging way to cause harm.

Matt emphasised that false or distorted narratives do real world damage. Citing a campaign by the Local Government Association (LGA), he noted that more than half of local politicians have faced untrue or disinformation regarding their political conduct.

The consequences aren’t just political, they impact real human lives and physical safety. Matt pointed to the tragic aftermath of the Henry Novak case, where two police officers were forced into hiding after being falsely identified online. Over time, these cumulative false narratives normalise suspicion and erode public faith in democratic institutions. The same pattern shows up across the public sector, wherever staff are public facing and open to misidentification or blame.

For public sector comms teams, being targeted with misleading information can be incredibly  stressful.

Jake shared his perspective on what it feels like to sit at the centre of these events. Local issues, whether they involve traffic schemes, bin collections, or parking, have always stoked strong reactions. However, Jake noted that the COVID-19 pandemic marked a major inflection point, ushering in a far more sceptical public and a decline in trust.

“When sat at the center, at times it feels really overwhelming. Keeping a cool head and not getting drawn into overreacting, getting that balance right can be really hard when you’re scrolling through seeing tons of shares.”  – Jake

Jake also highlighted the personal strain on teams caused by smartphone culture. With the public able to film anything, any time, from their devices, comms teams are often the first to see distressing footage of serious incidents, sometimes reviewing 30 to 40 clips in a single shift.

Helena agreed, describing the environment as “all-consuming” as teams jump from crisis to crisis. She advocated strongly for staff wellbeing, stressing that checking in on staff and setting up duty rotas is just as critical as the comms response itself. Comms teams must protect their colleagues and themselves while looking for valuable lessons to refine future strategy.

When false information begins to spread, how should a public sector organisation respond? The panel broke down the decision making process into actionable steps:

1. Diagnose before you act

Matt advised comms teams to evaluate the ‘what, who, how, and why’ before taking action. Comms leads need to determine if an issue is an isolated comment or part of a wider narrative, and assess the risk to safety, cohesion, and service delivery. He also flagged the alarming rise of deepfakes, noting that while AI generated deception is escalating, social listening tools like Orlo are evolving to help spot these threats early.

2. Move fast but lead with empathy

Jake stressed the importance of speed and tone. You don’t always need all the final facts before issuing an initial statement; being fast and human matters more. Using an empathetic voice, such as saying, “this must be really difficult for you, we’re looking into it now” can help to descalate things.

3. Don’t leave an information void

Helena cautioned against staying silent. When communities watch an incident play out on social media, they expect you to represent them and provide a safe digital space.

She shared a case study from Basildon, where the local elections were postponed. Misleading information on X sparked confusion and outrage, with claims that the votes had been cancelled entirely. Using Orlo’s social listening features, the council mapped public sentiment, identified the source of the rumour, and swiftly clarified the facts. By addressing the reputational and public risk head on, they nipped the crisis in the bud and actually saw their public trust score increase.

Though this is a local government example, the same principle – don’t leave a vacuum for rumour to fill – holds regardless of sector.

4. Choose your battles carefully

Jake warned against overreacting. If a rumour is contained to one or two posts, issuing a massive official statement on your main page can backfire by introducing the crisis to thousands of people who were previously unaware of it. Tools like Orlo help gauge the scale, helping teams decide whether to reply silently in the comments, send targeted emails, or issue a broadcast statement.

A recurring theme was that the organisation itself isn’t always the best or most credible messenger.

Matt pointed out that external, trusted voices are uniquely positioned to put out “small fires” because they are embedded in local Facebook groups and understand public anxieties. However, they must be kept briefed and aligned on the facts, as an incorrect statement from a politician or spokesperson carries massive weight.

Matt highlighted Luton as a prime example. Having faced significant community cohesion challenges and targeting by far right groups, Luton’s comms team works directly with trusted community leaders. The council supplies these leaders with content designed to promote unity, which is then shared organically through WhatsApp groups and local channels. In this setup, Luton acts as an enabler rather than a messenger.  The same principle applies wherever trusted local voices carry more weight than an official statement.

Helena urged organisations to stop responding ad hoc and do the groundwork before a crisis hits:

• Establish a social media house rules policy: Published on your website and backed by leadership, this policy outlines what behaviour is acceptable. It gives teams the backing to say, “We are hiding your comment because it violates our hate speech policy.” Check out our free guide for tips on how to create this, here.
• Don’t forget to debrief: Turn past crises into actionable playbooks and share learnings across the entire organisation.
• Keep leadership informed: Use automated analytics reports to flag policy violations and keep stakeholders updated on public sentiment.

When handling highly contentious decisions as well as mis,dis and malinformation, both Jake and Helena strongly advised against disabling comment sections.

Helena warned that shutting down dialogue damages credibility and creates an impression that decisions are being “forced” upon people, fueling further animosity. Jake recommended over-communicating across every physical and digital channel available, using clear, jargon-free language to explain the decision openly before rumors take hold.

Matt also addressed the ongoing debate regarding whether public sector organisations should abandon X. While some organisations have made political decisions to step away, Matt warned that “vacating the pitch” removes a crucial warning and informing tool from your organisation’s armoury. Helena agreed, saying that organisations must go where the conversation is happening, even if that’s on a channel you aren’t comfortable with.  Matt also reminded teams not to neglect traditional local news media, which still command high trust and digital reach within communities.

To wrap up the session, each speaker offered one key takeaway for public sector communicators:

• Jake: Trust your gut and your professional experience. As comms pros, you are the experts reading the online pulse daily. If you feel an issue is about to blow up, trust your instincts, inform internal leadership immediately, and stand by your expertise.
• Matt: Remember the unique tools at your disposal. You aren’t powerless against tech algorithms. Your organisations will often hold hyperlocal connections, respected stakeholders and voices, and community leadership that no billionaire-owned platform can replicate.
• Helena: Listen to the silent majority. The negative noise online feels loud, but it usually represents a tiny fraction of your community. Tune into the conversation using social listening, pre-bunk false narratives before they take root, and lean on available digital tools and peer communities for support.