By Zanele Mngadi
Government has put in place programmes and processes to ensure that the information it shares with the public is accurate, credible and verified. However, accuracy alone is not always enough to win the battle against misinformation and disinformation, finds a new study.
The study, which examined the role of social media management strategies in countering misinformation and disinformation within a national government department in South Africa, highlights the growing challenges government communicators face in the digital age. It drew on the experiences of nine communication practitioners who are directly involved in managing the department’s social media platforms.
One of the study’s key findings is that having accurate information does not necessarily guarantee that official information will be the first to reach the public or that citizens will engage with it.
Unlike unverified online content, government communication is guided by strict processes designed to ensure accuracy and accountability. Information must be verified, relevant stakeholders consulted and, where necessary, approvals obtained before any public response is issued. While these processes are essential in maintaining credibility and public confidence, the challenge, according to the study, is finding ways to respond quickly without compromising accuracy.
Misinformation and disinformation
The study also highlighted the importance of distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation. It adopted definitions used by the European Commission and UNESCO, which describe misinformation as false or misleading information shared without the intention to cause harm, while disinformation refers to deliberately false information shared with the intention to deceive. Although both can have harmful consequences, the distinction is important because each may require a different communication response.
Through semi-structured interviews with the nine communication practitioners, the study explored the strategies used to counter misinformation and disinformation, how these strategies are implemented in practice, the factors that influence their effectiveness and opportunities for improvement.
We cannot only communicate when something goes wrong
One of the study’s key findings was that countering misinformation and disinformation cannot be limited to correcting false information after it has already spread.
Participants indicated that the department uses a combination of proactive and reactive approaches, including disseminating accurate information, engaging with the public, monitoring the information environment and issuing corrective communication when necessary.
The study found that clear and consistent communication about government policies, programmes and services can help reduce the information gaps in which speculation, misinformation and disinformation are able to thrive.
The findings suggest that countering misinformation should not begin during a crisis, but should be embedded in everyday government communication efforts.
A strategy may be sound, but can we implement it quickly enough?
The research also highlighted the gap that can exist between having a strategy and being able to implement it effectively.
Communication practitioners operate within policies, guidelines, approval processes and coordination structures that are designed to ensure accuracy and accountability. Government cannot respond to an unverified claim with information that has not itself been verified.
However, the study found that limited capacity, coordination challenges and procedural delays can affect the effectiveness of the response. These internal challenges are compounded by the speed and complexity with which misinformation spreads across digital platforms.
One participant captured the challenge simply, citing:
“Slow turnaround times due to approval processes, which can allow misinformation to spread rapidly.”
The finding raises a critical question for the Public Service: how can government retain the checks and balances that protect the credibility of official communication without allowing those same processes to delay urgent responses?
The study does not suggest abandoning verification or approval procedures. Instead, it points to the need to assess whether existing processes are suited to the demands of the digital communication environment. This includes having clear mechanisms for verifying information, escalating urgent matters and securing approval when a rapid response is required. It is also important to ensure that decision-makers are available when issues arise.
While these may appear to be operational considerations, the study found that they can have a significant impact in the fast-paced social media environment. They can determine whether government engages in a developing conversation in real time or responds only after a false narrative has already gained traction.
Better tools help, but technology is not the whole answer
The study also points to the need for stronger monitoring capabilities and appropriate technology. Government communicators need to know what is being said, where conversations are taking place and when an emerging issue requires intervention.
Another participant highlighted a particular challenge:
“Closed platforms such as WhatsApp present additional challenges, as misinformation spreads in private groups that cannot be directly monitored.”
This means that even advanced monitoring tools cannot give communicators a complete picture of how misinformation and disinformation circulate. Information shared in private groups may only come to government’s attention when someone reports it or it appears on a public platform.
The study notes that technology can play an important role at a time when the volume of online information continues to grow. But technology cannot replace professional judgement. While monitoring tools can help identify emerging trends and potentially misleading content, communication practitioners must still interpret the information, understand the context and determine the most appropriate response.
One of the study’s conclusions is that strengthening technological capability must go hand in hand with strengthening the skills and capacity of the people managing government communication.
Trust matters as much as speed
Another issue that emerged strongly from the study was the importance of audience engagement and trust. Government may correct false information, but a correction will have limited value if the audience does not regard the source as credible.
One participant highlighted another important consideration: how official information is presented matters:
“A key challenge is that government messaging is often perceived as too formal and less engaging. Misinformation tends to gain more traction because it is presented in a more appealing or relatable way.”
Accuracy remains non-negotiable, but accuracy alone does not guarantee that people will notice, understand or engage with the information.
For government communicators, trust is not built only when misinformation appears. It is built through the everyday work of providing accurate information, responding to people, correcting mistakes when they occur and communicating in language that people can understand.
Publishing information is not necessarily the same as communicating it. People consume information differently and across different platforms. The responsibility is not only to make credible information available, but to make sure that it reaches people in forms that are accessible, relevant and useful to them.
A challenge for the Public Service
The research does not suggest that government is starting from scratch. Strategies, structures and communication practices already exist. Rather, the findings point to the need to strengthen and refine existing approaches.
The study recommends strengthening organisational capacity, improving coordination and response processes, enhancing technology and monitoring tools, and adopting a more audience-centred approach to communication.
The findings also reveal that misinformation and disinformation cannot be left to communication units alone. Communicators depend on programme managers, subject specialists and decision-makers to provide accurate information quickly. Effective responses, therefore, require cooperation across an institution.
The study ultimately underscores the important role of the Public Service in ensuring that reliable information remains accessible, visible and responsive to the needs of citizens.
The Public Service must be able to verify information, make decisions and communicate promptly when false claims emerge.
The responsibility remains the same: to provide the public with information that is accurate, credible and useful. What has changed is the speed at which this now needs to be done.
In an environment where false information can travel in minutes, the truth cannot routinely arrive hours or days later.
*Zanele Mngadi is the Head of Editorial and Production of Public Sector Manager magazine and Chief Director: Products and Platforms at the Government Communication and Information System. She conducted the study as part of her Bachelor of Public Administration Honours degree at MANCOSA
