The prebunking playbook for communicators

Every communications professional knows the sinking feeling. You’ve spent weeks crafting clear, evidence-based messaging about a new policy or initiative, only to watch it get twisted into something unrecognisable on social media. By the time you’ve prepared a response, the misinformation has already spread to thousands who will never see your correction.

Because we do a lot of work in the climate and energy spaces, we see it all the time and where we can work with our clients to anticipate and mitigate it.

This isn’t a new problem, but it’s getting worse. False information spreads farther, faster, deeper, and more broadly than the truth. And that’s particularly potent when trust in public institutions is declining. It’s also as true for internal communications as it is for external communications.

The Australian Government recognises that misinformation and disinformation threaten our democracy, society and economy. But legislative approaches alone aren’t enough. We need communication strategies that build public resilience before false information takes hold.

Understanding the landscape

Let’s be clear about definitions:

• Misinformation is incorrect or misleading content spread without harmful intent.
• Disinformation is false content shared deliberately to deceive.
• Malinformation is true information weaponised out of context to cause damage.

Why does this matter? Because intent shapes your response. You handle confused citizens differently from coordinated bad actors. Don’t waste energy trying to change the mind of someone who’s paid to lie. Focus on helping your unsuspecting target audience to recognise and resist mis/dis or malinformation before it spreads. (For reading ease, we will refer to misinformation for the rest of this post).

Why traditional approaches fall short

Many people believe clear, accurate information naturally wins out over mis/disinformation. If we just explained facts better, used more data, or found more credible spokespeople, people would recognise the truth. Wrong.

The challenge isn’t just about information quality – it’s about how people process information in an environment designed to capture attention and provoke emotional responses. False news is more novel, and people are more likely to share novel information, with false news around 70% more likely to be retweeted than true news.

The traditional approach to retrospective fact-checking, while important, often arrives too late. By the time misinformation is corrected, people have already formed opinions and shared false content. Even worse, research shows that repeating false claims, even to debunk them, can sometimes strengthen people’s memory of those claims rather than the correction. While fact-checking may seem logical, it can be time-consuming and, if done poorly, risks reinforcing the very misinformation it aims to address.

“I’m telling you a lie in a vicious effort that you will repeat my lie over and over
until it becomes true.”

Lady Gaga, discusses fame in interviws is a perfect summasion of how misinformation works.

Prebunk so you don’t have to debunk

Prebunking draws on the theory of psychological inoculation, similar to a vaccination. It involves pre-emptively warning people and exposing them to weakened doses of misinformation to help cultivate “mental antibodies” against fake news.

Rather than waiting for false information to spread and then responding, prebunking helps people recognise manipulation tactics before they encounter them in the wild. Research shows that inoculation interventions can reduce engagement with misinformation, and the beauty is that it doesn’t require people to remember specific facts. Instead, it teaches them to recognise patterns and techniques used in misleading content.

So, how can you implement prebunking strategies? Here are practical approaches that go beyond traditional fact-checking:

Build pattern recognition

Help your audiences recognise techniques used to spread misinformation. Common patterns include emotional manipulation, false urgency, cherry-picked statistics, and appeals to “secret knowledge.” When you see these tactics emerging around your issue or policy area, call them out proactively – tell people what is happening.

Inoculate against predictable attacks

Most complex or controversial areas face predictable lines of attack. If you’re announcing a new environmental policy, expect claims about job losses or economic impacts. If it is a new medical treatment, expect claims about safety risks, side effects, or long-term health consequences. Rather than waiting for these attacks, address them up front by explaining why the public might hear these claims and by providing context for evaluating them.

Use specific examples

Prebunking works by equipping people with the skills they need to refute future falsehoods. Generic warnings about “fake news” don’t work. Show concrete examples of how misinformation spreads in about your topic and what manipulation techniques look like in practice.

Leverage trusted messengers

You don’t have to do this alone. Partner with journalists, community leaders, and subject matter experts who can help explain manipulation tactics using language and examples that resonate with different communities.

Share information about known misconceptions and facts with your partners so they can spead through their networks.

Build media literacy skills

Rather than just providing information, teach people how to evaluate sources. This includes highlighting publication dates, sharing reputable sources, and calling out content that is designed to provoke emotional reactions rather than inform.

When correction is necessary

Once bad information is out there, correcting it requires strategy, not reaction:

• Lead with truth: Avoid repeating myths in headlines, as it can reinforce them. Be transparent about the infomartion you have and how decisions were made.
• Check your tone: Corrections can backfire if they feel confrontational or dismissive. Make sure you don’t use shame or patronising language. If there is uncertainty call it out, fake confidence can impact trust.
• Use the “truth sandwich”: Start with truth → provide facts and evidence to counter the myth → end by reinforcing the truth again. Repeat this again and again. Corrections need to be seen more than once.
• Respond in a timely way: Don’t wait to ‘see how it goes’, misinformation can spread quickly.
• Use a credible source: Ensure corrections come from trusted, authoritative sources (hint: this might not always be your CEO). Elevate other voices, not just institutional ones.
• Make it accessible: Don’t rely on PDFs or dense statements. Use visuals, clear language, and formats your audience actually consumes.

People don’t just evaluate the message – they judge the messenger. If they don’t trust you, your facts won’t land.

Spoting and verifying misinformation

Deepfakes, fake screenshots, and AI-generated false narratives are here now. You need a plan for how to spot and verify suspicious content. At minimum:

• Establish verification protocols: Create clear processes and responsibilities for quickly identifying, checking, and escalating suspicious content.
• Train spokespeople for manipulated-content scenarios: Prepare them to respond calmly and credibly to deepfakes or other misleading content without amplifying it.
• Brief executives on public risks before it happens: Ensure leaders understand how AI-driven misinformation works and how the organisation will need to respond quickly and consistently if targeted.
• Monitor and respond in real time: Use monitoring tools to detect emerging threats early and guide when and how to respond.
• Pre-prepare holding statements and assets: Develop ready-to-use responses and materials so you can act quickly and consistently during an incident.

Build resilience, not suspicion

The goal isn’t to make people suspicious of everything they read, but to help them develop better instincts for evaluating information quality. This requires a shift in thinking. Instead of seeing ourselves as information providers, we need to see ourselves as building public resilience against manipulation.

Communicators are uniquely positioned to lead this shift. We understand the policy landscape, we know where misinformation typically emerges, and we have the credibility to explain complex issues accessibly. By moving beyond reactive fact-checking to proactive inoculation, we can help build a more resilient information environment.