A communications landscape polluted with misinformation
Simon Creer is Communications and External Affairs Director at the Royal Town Planning Institute
The current RTPI president, Jan Bessell, has chosen to make the theme of her year ‘planning with purpose’. This means a renewed focus on the outcomes of planning and the benefits our planning systems can bring to communities.
During her inaugural address at the start of the year, she highlighted a series of case studies where phenomenal positive change had been achieved through the planning system following clear engagement with communities.
A digital series will highlight more examples on World Town Planning Day. There is still time to be involved if you want to get in touch.
I tend to agree that a sharp focus on planning outcomes and the positive changes that they encompass is essential for planners working across the diversity of the profession.
However, those outcomes will become harder and harder to achieve given the growing difficulties presented by the current media and social media landscapes.
I have written before about the dangers of the interaction between social media, private messaging and local media, but this week the Social Market Foundation published a comprehensive report which laid out in stark terms the new environment that planners must operate in.
No News Is Bad News: The Hidden Threat of Local Misinformation makes for some startling reading. It lays bare the spread of misinformation across social channels and how it intensifies during periods of local decision, such as by-elections and local elections.
It also highlights the impact declining local media coverage has an amplifying effect. Misinformation, it would appear, grows in news deserts.
Given that planning is a collaborative process during which local community voices need to be heard this should concern us all.
It becomes increasingly difficult to work towards a collective and collaborative outcome if the communications landscape is polluted with misinformation.
One of the recommendations of the report is that community leaders should be trained to understand misinformation, and local authorities should flag to them when a false narrative is spreading in the area.
I would argue this is a requirement for planners as well.
A comprehensive understanding of how misinformation spreads in your area, who the major players are and what some of the possible motivations may be ahead of any public consultation will help you to monitor channels and keep ahead of anything breaking out.
We know from our own research (quoted by SMF) that our members are deeply concerned about misinformation and the impact it is having not only on their welfare but also on their ability to do their job.
We will shortly be publishing our joint work with The Planner magazine on communications and planning, which will provide a series of insights into the best ways to communicate, engage and listen to your communities and help them realise a shared vision for their area.
However, in the meantime we need to be alert to the risks that this proliferation of misinformation can have on our work and how, if we are working in a news desert, we can provide clear, transparent and trusted sources of information that can go some way towards operating in the way local newspapers used to.
The SMF report is clear: where there is a healthy media ecosystem misinformation is lower. It is worth considering how, if at all, we can inoculate communities against misinformation by providing the crucial clear and comprehensive information they need to make informed decisions.
