In a world where a single misleading post can circle the globe before an official statement has even been drafted, government communicators are fighting a battle that cannot be won with facts alone. A new study by Zanele Mngadi, conducted as part of her Bachelor of Public Administration Honours degree at MANCOSA, set out to understand how a national government department in South Africa manages social media in an era of rampant misinformation and disinformation. The research, based on interviews with nine communication practitioners who manage the department’s online platforms, reveals a deeply human challenge: people want information that is not only true but also timely, relatable, and easy to understand. The study found that while government has put in place strict processes to ensure that what it shares is accurate, credible, and verified, accuracy alone is not enough. In the digital age, official information can be correct and still lose the battle for public attention. Citizens may not see it, may not understand it, or may simply find the false version more compelling. This is the uncomfortable reality that the study unpacks: truth matters, but so do speed, tone, trust, and the ability to meet people where they are.
The study draws an important distinction between misinformation and disinformation, borrowing definitions from the European Commission and UNESCO. Misinformation is false or misleading information shared without the intention to cause harm, while disinformation is deliberately false information created and shared with the intention to deceive. Both can damage public trust and undermine democratic processes, but they are not the same, and they may require different responses. A person who shares a rumour by mistake needs education and correction; a person or group that deliberately fabricates a story needs exposure and accountability. The communication practitioners in the study were acutely aware of this nuance. Yet their biggest challenge was not deciding whether a piece of content was harmful or malicious. It was figuring out how to respond quickly enough to make a difference. Government communication, unlike the unregulated world of social media, is guided by strict protocols. Information must be verified, relevant stakeholders must be consulted, and approvals must be obtained before anything is published. These checks and balances exist for good reason: they protect the credibility of official communication and ensure that the state does not spread unverified claims. But they also slow things down. One participant put it plainly: “Slow turnaround times due to approval processes, which can allow misinformation to spread rapidly.” The study does not suggest abandoning these processes. Instead, it raises a difficult question: how can government keep its standards without letting bureaucracy become the enemy of timely truth?
One of the most striking findings is that countering misinformation cannot be left until after it has already spread. The practitioners described a combination of proactive and reactive strategies. They work to disseminate accurate information, engage with the public, monitor the information environment, and issue corrections when necessary. But the study found that the most effective approach is to communicate clearly and consistently about government policies, programmes, and services before a crisis erupts. When people understand what government is doing, there is less room for speculation, rumour, and deliberate lies to take hold. Misinformation thrives in information gaps, so the best way to starve it is to make sure those gaps do not exist. This means that countering false narratives should be embedded in everyday communication, not treated as an emergency response that kicks in when something goes wrong. The study also revealed a gap 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 accountability. But limited capacity, coordination challenges, and procedural delays can weaken the response. By the time an official statement is approved and published, the false story may have already been shared, liked, and believed by thousands of people. The study argues that government needs to assess whether its existing processes are suited to the demands of the digital environment. It needs clear mechanisms for verifying information quickly, escalating urgent matters, and securing approval when a rapid response is required. Decision-makers must be available when issues arise, not just during office hours. These may sound like operational details, but in the fast-paced world of social media, they can determine whether government shapes the conversation or merely reacts to it after the damage is done.
Technology, the study suggests, can help, but it is not a silver bullet. Government communicators need to know what is being said, where conversations are happening, and when an emerging issue requires intervention. Monitoring tools can help track public sentiment, identify trending hashtags, and flag potentially misleading content. But they cannot capture everything. One participant highlighted a particularly difficult problem: “Closed platforms such as WhatsApp present additional challenges, as misinformation spreads in private groups that cannot be directly monitored.” In private chats, false stories can circulate among family members, colleagues, and community groups without any public trace. By the time the misinformation appears on a public platform or is reported to authorities, it may have already influenced countless people. This means that even the most advanced technology cannot give communicators a complete picture of how misinformation and disinformation spread. The study emphasises that technology cannot replace professional judgement. Monitoring tools can identify trends, but human beings must interpret the information, understand the context, and decide what response is appropriate. A social media post that looks alarming may be harmless, while a quiet conversation in a private group may be causing real harm. Only experienced communication practitioners can make these distinctions. The study concludes that strengthening technological capability must go hand in hand with strengthening the skills, instincts, and capacity of the people who manage government communication. Tools are useful, but they are only as effective as the people using them.
Trust, the study found, matters as much as speed. Government can issue a correction, but if the public does not see the source as credible, the correction will have little effect. One participant raised a crucial point about presentation: “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.” This is a painful truth for many public communicators. Accuracy is non-negotiable, but accuracy alone does not guarantee that people will notice, understand, or care about the information. If official messages are stiff, jargon-filled, or out of touch with the way people actually speak, they will be ignored, no matter how factually correct they are. The study argues that trust is not built only when misinformation appears. It is built through everyday work: providing accurate information, responding to people’s questions, admitting and correcting mistakes when they happen, and communicating in language that feels human. Publishing information is not the same as communicating it. People consume information differently and across different platforms. Some prefer short videos, others rely on radio, and many get their news through WhatsApp. The responsibility of government is not just to make credible information available, but to make sure it reaches people in forms that are accessible, relevant, and useful to them. This requires a shift in mindset, from treating communication as a broadcast to treating it as a conversation.
The study does not suggest that government is starting from scratch. Strategies, structures, and communication practices already exist. But the findings point to the need to strengthen and refine these approaches. The recommendations include improving organisational capacity, coordinating responses more effectively, enhancing monitoring tools and technology, and adopting a more audience-centred approach to communication. Perhaps most importantly, the study reveals 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 require cooperation across the entire institution. When false claims emerge, the Public Service must be able to verify information, make decisions, and communicate promptly. The ultimate 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 must now be done. In an environment where false information can travel in minutes, the truth cannot routinely arrive hours or days later. The challenge for government is not simply to produce correct information, but to be present, visible, and responsive in the spaces where citizens are already talking. It is a challenge that demands better tools, faster processes, and more human communication. Above all, it demands a recognition that the battle against misinformation is not just about facts. It is about trust, connection, and the willingness to meet people where they are.