The crucial role of humanitarian communication in the fake news and “infoglut” era

As privileged witnesses in the field, humanitarian NGOs are more than ever crucial sources of information in a world saturated with fake news. But between information inflation and political manipulation, their communication faces new challenges. How can they maintain their credibility and continue to inform public opinion about crises?

In 2025, global solidarity and interna­tional cooperation are suffering from geopolitical tensions, displacing over 120 million people,^[1]USA for UNHCR, Refugee Statistics, 2024, https://www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/statistics/atistics and severely af­fecting the funding and effectiveness of humanitarian response in multiple coun­tries around the globe.

Humanitarians are witnessing a resur­gence of severe humanitarian crises in which the rule of law is no longer re­spected. In past conflicts, international law was often disregarded in practice, resulting in devastating humanitarian consequences. In addition to these de facto violations, key governmental and non-governmental decision-makers are now deliberately and openly rejecting its importance and obligations, not out of neglect, but through conscious defiance and public denial, notably expressed to­wards international humanitarian law by several armed groups in Myanmar.^[2]Geneva Call, Engaging Non-State Armed Groups on International Humanitarian Law, 2024, https://genevacall.org/our-workThe world is therefore observing a continued pattern of international law violations, along with a worrying shift towards pub­licly declaring intentions to break inter­national law.

At the same time, humanitarian organisations face the daily reality of those they serve, with limited capac­ity to address the broad spectrum of life-threatening needs. This context comes with substantial additional challenges to humanitarian response, particularly due to shifts in funding, changes in strategy and the broader “hu­manitarian reset” conversation.^[3]International Council of Voluntary Agencies, The IASC Humanitarian Reset examined: A strategic briefing for NGOs, 23 May 2025, … Continue reading

In addition to this harsh reality, the phenomena of “infoglut”^[4]Stella Zaryan, Truth and Trust: How Audiences are Making Sense of Fake News, Thesis, Lund University, 2017, … Continue readingand fake news have contributed to exacerbating tensions and to amplifying existing hu­manitarian crises. Humanitarian commu­nications are being challenged by this evolving environment from multiple angles. In addition to the usual tenden­cy towards immediacy and novelty in news coverage widely discussed in the literature on crisis reporting, the con­tinuous and exponential flow of infor­mation referred to as infoglut is drowning out contextual updates on humanitarian crises and affected populations. As a re­sult, these crises receive limited media coverage and are poorly represented in the public sphere, leading to a decline in public interest and governments’ disen­gagement. These forgotten crises over­looked by international media “receive little or no assistance and never become the centre of attention for internation­al diplomacy efforts”, directly affecting displaced populations in countries like Cameroon, Ethiopia and Mozambique in 2024.^[5]Norwegian Refugee Council, The world’s most neglected displacement crises 2024 – It is time for action, 3 June 2025, … Continue reading

“Humanitarian communications are being undermined by fake news.”

At the same time, humanitarian com­munications are being undermined by fake news, sometimes creating the im­pression that humanitarian principles are not being followed by aid workers by presenting humanitarian aid being delivered in an unprincipled manner through published social media pictures with humanitarian visibility associated with weapons in the field, for example. Disinformation targets both the commu­nities aid workers serve and humanitari­an organisations themselves, putting aid workers, humanitarian response and dis­placed populations at risk. Facing these specific challenges, how are humanitar­ian NGOs’ communications affected by the backlash of the post-truth era?

NGOs as crucial communicators on humanitarian crises

In conflict-affected and restricted en­vironments, humanitarian NGOs often serve as crucial on-the-ground witness­es. In this complex context, many key stakeholders who are protecting de­mocracy, equality and human rights are no longer able to access places where the situation is worsening. These obser­vations apply to a diversity of contexts, such as Somalia, where international presence beyond Mogadishu is limited to humanitarians, particularly those work­ing for international non-governmental organisations that have authorisations to be deployed in sites of internally displaced people (IDP) in hard-to-reach areas. These actors, such as civil society organisations, journalists and communi­ty representatives, are directly targeted, leaving little space for opposition and denunciation. In this sense, humani­tarians are among the last remaining sources of information on the ground when it comes to witnessing the impact of armed conflicts, mass displacement and sometimes even simultaneous cli­mate shocks.

By working on the frontline of the horri­fying consequences of wars, humanitar­ians conduct detailed context analyses and needs assessments. They talk to communities, lead focus group discus­sions, listen to accounts from survivors of the unimaginable and document dire living conditions. In particular contexts such as Somalia, international media rarely have direct access to communi­ties in the country and NGOs can play a key role in sharing information from the ground, notably when they “produce and distribute free content among news”.^[6]Silvio Waisbord, “Can NGOs change the news?”, International Journal of Communication, vol. 5, 2011, pp. 142–165.

This firsthand-collected information is used to inform humanitarian response, but also to illustrate needs on the ground. Over the past decades, humani­tarian organisations have progressively used communication as a powerful tool to raise awareness of observed realities on the ground. They have therefore in­creasingly invested in communication expertise with this main objective in mind. In addition to this primary pur­pose, humanitarian communication strategies have aimed at showcasing the impact of the response, notably through storytelling and visually com­pelling content, while also supporting fundraising efforts.

“NGOs have developed particular expertise in crisis communication.”

In addition to daily communication ef­forts, NGOs have developed particu­lar expertise in crisis communication. NGOs are at the forefront of emergen­cies and often serve as reliable sources of information for international and na­tional media to complement or inform their analysis.^[7]Simon Cottle and David Nolan, “Global humanitarianism and the changing aid–media field : ‘Everyone was dying for footage’”, Journalism Studies, vol. 8, no. 6, 2007, pp. 862–878.Developing emergen­cy communication plans is an impor­tant tactic for organisations to ensure the situation is covered by the media, thereby influencing public opinion and decision-makers’ interests.

Humanitarian communications play a vital role in advancing advocacy efforts aimed at influencing policies and public opinion. While humanitarian di­plomacy is one of the tactics used to influence policy development behind closed doors by organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Norwegian Refugee Council and the Danish Refugee Council, exter­nal communication is identified as one of the privileged or complementary advo­cacy tools to influence decision-makers through the pressure of informed public opinion. This is notably one of the rea­sons why humanitarian organisations have been investing more in informa­tion management capacities as well as evidence-based advocacy resources.

Some organisations like Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) consider humanitarian workers have been “bearing witness”^[8]Valérie Gorin, “Witnessing and Témoignage in MSF’s advocacy”, Journal of Humanitarian Affairs, vol. 3, no. 2, November 2021, pp. 28–33.to the lack of access to basic needs and the dehumanisation of civilians in conflict zones, pushing them to search for ways to have a lasting impact while respond­ing to urgent needs. In this sense, human­itarian advocacy has been considered an impactful way to address the root causes of hunger and violations of international law directly affecting civilians.

Humanitarian communications glued in the post-truth area

In the midst of multiple communication channels, public opinion is very easily influenced, particularly when reliable sources of information are difficult to identify, which is especially the case for hard-to-reach areas. Humanitarian crises’ representation is suffering con­siderably from digital platforms losing significant democratic control over the systemised availability of information. Moreover, targeted algorithms, in addi­tion to censorship on social media and websites, make it even more difficult to raise awareness of specific crises. Besides, keywords such as “gender” or “climate”, which are crucial to deep­ening understanding of humanitari­an crises, can be purposely lost in the realm of infoglut on social media if considered unaligned with governmen­tal policies – and therefore voluntarily removed to preserve online visibility, keeping the crisis at the centre of these difficult decisions.^[9]Irwin Loy, “Aid groups are erasing climate change from their websites. Feeling Trump pressure, some agencies are editing, downplaying, or deleting climate language”, The New Humanitarian, 24 … Continue reading

The impact of disinformation in these situations can be harmful, since a lack of public coverage of these particular crises and concepts can lead to reduced fund­ing, for example for gender-sensitive pro­gramming, and diminished humanitarian presence, including in climate-affected countries, ultimately leaving vulnerable populations behind.

“Fake news is difficult to deconstruct and counter and is affecting humanitarian communications and response in several ways.”

Fake news is difficult to deconstruct and counter, and is affecting humanitarian communications and response in several ways. Humanitarian NGOs are sometimes targeted on social media by actors that are part of a conflict. In this sense, some gov­ernmental authorities or political parties spread fake news through public media, notably targeting refugee populations and supporting organisations, contribut­ing to the spread of online hate and dis­trust. In the context of Myanmar, powerful non-state actors presented humanitarian NGOs as hidden instruments of “Western policies” or of a militarised government, directly affecting NGOs’ reputation and questioning their principle of neutral­ity during the 2017 Rohingya crisis.^[10]Amnesty International, Myanmar: Facebook’s systems promoted violence against Rohingya; Meta owes reparations, September 2022, … Continue readingHumanitarian organisations are also strug­gling with fake accounts attempting fraud or falsely attributing mistakes to organisa­tions, as happened to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund.^[11]United Nations, Fraud alert: UN warns Ukrainian citizens and aid organizations about scam schemes using the name of the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund, United Nations in Ukraine, 29 September 2022, … Continue reading

Humanitarian communications can also be publicly exploited by external stake­holders to serve their own interests, very often in opposition to the interests of a principled humanitarian response. In this sense, sometimes, “mobile phones and social media are used to promote local hostilities”, exacerbating tensions and creating confusion.^[12]Mark Bowden and Victoria Metcalfe-Hough, Humanitarian diplomacy and protection advocacy in an age of caution, Humanitarian Policy Group, Briefing Note, 25 November 2020, … Continue readingNon-state armed groups can, for example, try to facilitate access for humanitarians in exchange for a presence during aid distribution, allowing them to manip­ulate communities’ perception of the humanitarian response to improve their public image. It is therefore crucial that “the relationship between ‘ethics’ and ‘instrumentalism’” serves as “a ground for critically engaging with the field of humanitarian communication”.^[13]David Nolan and Akina Mikami, “‘The things that we have to do’: Ethics and instrumentality in humanitarian communication”, Global Media and Communication, vol. 9, no. 1, 6 December 2012, pp. … Continue reading

Post-truth repercussions on humanitarian work

The post-truth era has dramatic reper­cussions on humanitarian work, not only because it affects NGOs’ reputation, but also because it presents a distorted vision of the reality of people in need. By circu­lating fake news among a large quantity of information, politicians ensure they weaponise public communication and misrepresent affected populations’ living conditions and the way aid is supporting them. For example, political actors may communicate misleadingly about the content of humanitarian aid, falsely giv­ing the impression that the aid serves as a party to the conflict or, in the worst-case scenario, creating the impression that vic­tims of conflicts are part of the conflict.

The post-truth era consistently implies cumulative risks to NGO operations. Fake news and infoglut notably create reputational risks for NGOs by giving the impression that organisations are not neutral, leading to decreased communi­ty acceptance that directly affects access to vulnerable populations. Additionally, this fake news brings security risks for humanitarian workers, pushing public opinion to passively tolerate cases of aid workers’ murder and kidnapping, while also increasing security risks for aid bene­ficiaries by portraying them as enemies or as part of the conflict. These growing risks coincide with additional operational chal­lenges as the distribution of humanitarian aid requires more careful planning, ensur­ing that the response is not visible and, for example, replacing in-kind assistance with cash dealings to mitigate these risks.

In parallel, humanitarian funds have been dramatically decreasing. This de­cline has notably coincided with the constant use of fake news targeting hu­manitarian crises and humanitarian re­sponse, pushing public opinion to doubt the utility of such support by prioritising internal policies rather than foreign hu­manitarian aid. This has been enabled as the linkage between humanitarian aid and the well-being of Western soci­ety has been dismantled through strong public narratives referring to a one-sid­ed perception of humanitarian aid.

In addition to all these challenges, there is competition for public interest both between organisations and between countries, as media coverage is perceived to reinforce public support for affected populations. This is the reason why hu­manitarian organisations are collaborat­ing with local radio in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, to raise awareness about basic needs and the importance of protection of displaced populations.

This competition over funding and pub­lic positioning is clearly reflected in hu­manitarian external communications. Organisations are often pressured to produce content during international campaigns, even when the theme falls outside their scope. While this can pos­itively raise awareness of important issues such as access to water, the vol­ume of publications during these cam­paigns may overshadow organisations with fewer external communication ca­pacities, even if they have strong contextual understanding and are deeply field-oriented.

Mitigation measures for humanitarian communications in a realm of fake news

Humanitarian organisations must adopt strategic and principled communication measures to safeguard their credibility and mission. In addition to strategic re­sponse planning, humanitarian organisa­tions should prioritise the development of strategic and principled communication plans, including measures to miti­gate some of the negative consequences of the post-truth era. This approach needs to prioritise independence and diver­sified funding in an era where complex conflicts are recurrent and humanitarian aid is increasingly exploited by political interests, reinforcing the necessity of the neutrality of aid. Moreover, humanitarian responders should invest in expertise in communications to pre-identify com­munication objectives, but also tools, targeted audiences and key messages, while paying sufficient attention to red lines. By developing a principled com­munication strategy, organisations will make sure to include pragmatic steps to inform people about humanitarian crises while keeping the importance of human­itarian principles central. This principled approach is well illustrated by an MSF video showing the necessity of better representing humanitarians and affected populations.^[14]MSF South Asia, MSF: Better representation of our diverse global workforce, YouTube video, 2 December 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btO8tehhlcEThis priority is particular­ly critical as humanitarian organisations operate in this environment alongside ongoing discussions about the humani­tarian reset.

Innovative communication methods are essential for humanitarian organisations to stay relevant and effectively counter disinformation. This approach will allow humanitarian organisations to adopt new ways of communicating and maintain a strong presence in the public sphere, countering fake news and reinforcing their positioning in a landscape where infoglut diminishes audience interest in devastating humanitarian crises. These new methods can include use of emerg­ing communication platforms (such as Tik Tok, Threads, Medium, etc.) and adaptation to new formats (WhatsApp channels, stories from the field) as well.

“Humanitarian organisations should invest more in joint advocacy campaigns where they are identified as a powerful tool to counter hate speech and fake news.”

Additionally, humanitarian organisations should invest more in joint advocacy cam­paigns where they are identified as a pow­erful tool to counter hate speech and fake news. Joint advocacy campaigns reinforce organisations’ credibility to inform public opinion on left-behind populations. They also allow organisations to have a strong­er impact on decision makers by bringing together influential perspectives to reach their advocacy and policy-influencing goals, such as facilitating access to hard-to-reach populations in need.

Organisations should also include grass­roots communications in their strategic plans by giving affected populations the chance to raise their concerns, share their daily struggles, and advocate for international attention, especially where infoglut is decreasing public in­terest. Grassroots organisations are key to continuing advocacy for their rights, especially where Western politicians tend to discredit their voices.

Finally, humanitarian organisations should reinforce their humanitarian diplomacy efforts alongside their ex­ternal communication efforts, particularly when these efforts are aligned with evidence-based advocacy, focusing on long-term impact rather than fundrais­ing.^[15]Monika Krause, “Humanitarian communication and its limits”, in Irene Bruna Seu and Shani Orgad (eds.), Caring in Crisis: Humanitarianism, the Public and NGOs, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, pp. … Continue reading By emphasising needs, discussing key issues with decision-makers bilat­erally and influencing policymakers in closed forums, organisations gain space to deliver humanitarian aid better where online and public politicised discussions might delay proper responses and fur­ther increase vulnerabilities.

In conclusion, humanitarian organisa­tions play a crucial role in sharing key contextual information on humanitari­an crises, especially in conflict zones or hard-to-reach areas. They can support international media by giving access to evidence from the ground and inform public opinion thanks to their recog­nised credibility. They bring important expertise in crisis communication, in­cluding reporting on international law violations and significant humanitarian consequences. However, they face significant challenges in the post-truth era, where disinformation and infoglut trans­form public perceptions of affected pop­ulations and therefore negatively impact critical humanitarian response. To mit­igate these risks, organisations must invest in strategic, principled communications planning, support grassroot and joint communication initiatives, and pri­oritise humanitarian diplomacy efforts.

This article is a personal initiative and does not reflect the perspective of any organisation.

Picture credits: Yunus Erdogdu