When misinformation becomes credible

Rumours, manipulated statements and fabricated financial figures have always posed risks to companies. What is new is the technical dimension brought about by artificial intelligence and, with it, the danger of losing control over the interpretation of information: generative AI can convincingly imitate voices, images and videos and create content on a massive scale. In its Global Risks Report 2026 (source: WEF), the World Economic Forum ranks misinformation and disinformation as the second-greatest risk for the next two years.

For communications departments, dealing with misinformation is not an entirely new task, but it does present more demanding challenges. They must not only be able to assess whether a statement is false, but also whether a supposedly authentic document, video or audio recording is genuine at all.

Disinformation refers to false or misleading information deliberately disseminated with the aim of influencing perceptions or behaviour. It is therefore clearly distinct from criticism or unintentional misinformation. This distinction is important for a company’s response, but it is not the sole determining factor.

Targeted disinformation should not be addressed publicly as a matter of reflex. A rebuttal can give a claim that had previously received little attention additional reach and, consequently, relevance. Conversely, silence can become problematic as soon as the misinformation spreads or reaches relevant stakeholders. The decisive factors are therefore intent and the source, as well as reach, the dynamics of dissemination and the potential for harm.

To be able to make this assessment at all, traditional media monitoring is no longer sufficient. Communications departments should develop this into an ‘issue radar’. In addition to established (online) media, this includes social networks and relevant online communities. Key factors are the dynamics of dissemination, relevant influencers and indications of manipulation.

When assessing the information, the following applies: Is the information demonstrably false or misleading? Does it reach relevant stakeholders? And could it harm the business, its reputation or its ability to act? In the case of suspicious image, audio or video content, the origin and authenticity must also be verified. A false claim with negligible reach can be monitored. A rapidly spreading hoax on a business-critical topic, on the other hand, requires a swift, coordinated response.

Speed alone is not enough. A swift but incorrect response can cause more damage than a slightly delayed but robust one. Communications departments need pre-established processes: Who assesses the case? Who verifies facts and digital content? When should senior management, the legal department, IT or compliance be consulted? Who decides on a public response?

In a crisis, the communications department must not have to first find out which figure is correct or who has the necessary information. Employees, too, should know where they can report suspicious content and which information is verified. If a falsehood is confirmed, the response should be as specific as possible: what is false, what is verifiably true, and where can stakeholders find reliable information? A correction issued via the organisation’s own channels can be supplemented by providing direct information to groups particularly affected. In doing so, the false claim should not be unnecessarily repeated or disseminated further.

Organisations that communicate transparently and maintain robust relationships with journalists, staff, customers and investors have an advantage in the event of a crisis: trust. The company website, established channels and recognised spokespersons become anchor points for verified information. This also involves providing facts in a consistent and easily accessible manner. As more and more people are using AI systems to search for information, communications and marketing departments should also check how their company is portrayed there. This can help counter false representations, but does not guarantee that AI responses will be correct.

For employees in particular, the order in which information is received is crucial. If they first hear about an alleged corporate crisis via social media, this can create uncertainty. A timely internal explanation provides clarity and turns them into credible points of contact within their personal circles.

‘Communications departments must therefore not only ensure that a company is heard. They must ensure that it is believed.’

Disinformation cannot be prevented. However, companies can reduce their vulnerability. To do so, communications departments must act more effectively as a watchdog, a verification body and a strategic adviser to senior management. This also involves building up the necessary expertise to identify and assess manipulated content. Where this expertise is lacking internally, external expertise is required. Above all, however, communications and IT must work more closely together. By now, at the very latest, this interface has become an integral part of crisis preparedness in communications.

Professional defence against disinformation does not mean publicly refuting every false claim. It means identifying at an early stage which claims could pose a threat to a company’s reputation or business. In an information landscape where reality is becoming increasingly easy to imitate, trust is becoming a scarce resource. Communications departments must therefore not only ensure that a company is heard; they must ensure that it is believed.