Christmas approaches, and I’m now managing a new demanding junior stakeholder, my beautiful son, who arrived on Sunday. With mum and baby doing well, my paternity leave has begun, and it is time to wave a thankful, if slightly exhausted, goodbye to 2025.

Before signing off for the year, however, I wanted to reflect on what I think 2026 may hold.

Intelligence to drive trust

Data-led insights continue to transform strategic communications into a function not just defined by media relationships but also elevate the roles of communications professionals to C-Suite decision makers; we protect and build a firm’s most important aspect, trust.

At the start of 2025, my focus began by naval gazing on the more polluted parts of the internet: misinformation and disinformation. I joined the firm Securitas for a talk in Stockholm, addressing the critical issues of narrative warfare and the communications landscape.

It was an apt narrative continuum following Mark Zuckerberg’s 7^th January 2025 announcement that Meta is abandoning the use of independent fact checkers on Facebook and Instagram, replacing them with community notes. You can read my independent thoughts on this subject by clicking here.

This thought leadership was reinforced at the end of the year by the privilege of interviewing Wikipedia Founder, Jimmy Wales, at a packed London event focusing on the fundamental concept of Trust. For a long time, I’ve been a supporter of the Wikimedia Foundation, and speaking about optimistically building trust beats focusing on the darker corners of the internet.

In between, I’ve been fortunate to speak and advise multiple companies facing challenges relating to their online profile. In particular, the ongoing impact of Generative AI. It’s clear that building trust in a zero-trust communications environment – accentuated by so-called AI slop and political polarisation – will continue to be a corporate challenge in 2026.

Zero-trust on social media is driving fragmentation

Social media continues to go through a catalyst of change. A data partner I work closely with, Pulsar, recently published their report ‘The Great Fragmentation: Navigating the Splintered Web’, showing how audiences, platforms, and behaviours are pulling in new directions. But you could call this phenomenon what it truly is: a mass secession from the truth, propelled by the failure of trust.

Pulsar starts the report by saying,

“We’ve been here before. In the middle of the 20th century, particularly in the US, markets and audiences were concentrated in the hands of a few major players across telecoms, automobiles and personal computing – until they weren’t. Today, the same fragmentation that took place within these industries is happening to social media.”

This ‘fragmentation’ could easily be seen as a visible symptom of ideological distrust. When institutions, governments, newspapers, and the very platforms that host them are viewed with a healthy scepticism, the result is predictable: a retreat. Platform choice is now a form of identity signalling. People are no longer merely choosing a medium; they are choosing a tribe, a belief, and a preferred version of reality.

Take Substack, for example. Pulsar highlights that Substack’s growth has been 65% this year – based on conversations here, this is in part due to a philosophical known that Substack rewards engagement and free speech.

The biggest user growth also comes from Bluesky and Truth Social – two other social platforms with strongly positioned purposes. In contrast, the user base for goliaths such as TikTok and Twitch are falling; Facebook and LinkedIn seem flat. It could be perceived that the masses, refusing to be informed by a single, purportedly objective source, now seek refuge in niche outlets and specialized channels where their existing prejudices are not challenged but celebrated.

Communications professionals with deep audience understanding will need to face how to manage narratives across these splintered grounds; additionally, where to focus shrinking budgets to make the most impact.

Get ready for 2026

If I had to summarise what 2026 will mean for strategic communicators, then it is to witness a paradox: we are more internet-connected than at any point in our lives, yet we are drowning in misinformation, polarisation, and isolation.

Social media has resulted in a society that is neither social nor particularly expert (thanks, AI). Having been burned by the cold, algorithmic indifference of the major platforms, where outrage is the currency, people now crave something that the corporate world, in its infinite clumsiness, struggles to provide: authenticity.

The fragmented communications landscape has curdled the professional tone of voice, which is likely suspected as PR-managed deception. Instead, people crave the personal. People do not want to hear from a “brand”; they wish to hear from a human being, flaws and all. It’s like the social media of 2008 has come full circle for 2026.

This means moving away from the vanity of “broadcasting content” and towards the essential work of community building. Trust is no longer a top-down endowment; it is a bottom-up achievement. It is built in the small –the Discords, the Substack comments, Facebook private groups – where the noise of the mob is replaced by the voice of the person.

The irony is delicious: to be successful in the professional world of 2026, one must become decisively less “professional.” One must be prepared to be personal, to be eccentric, and to be present. We are no longer managing reputations; we are tending to small fires of human fellowship in a very cold, very dark, and very splintered woods. If we cannot provide that warmth, we are merely adding to the chill.

Like many intentions of parents, they are quickly influenced by the actions of their children. In my case, another nappy change is now due. You could say I like to get my hands dirty, both professionally and in my role as dad. Clearly, part of my 2026 challenge will be balancing ‘corp dad’ with ‘dad, dad’.

Merry Christmas.

“… an abnormal and unstable situation that threatens an organization’s strategic objectives, reputation or viability”

Among client conversations and internal team discussions, I can tell you that the initial reaction to the financial violence isn’t fear, but a profound sense of offense. Without divulging the details of my first taste of short seller attack, often an organisation’s first reaction is the desire to drag the accuser into the public square and flay them with facts. For short sellers though, this is a mistake and a misjudgement of their character; they rely on narratives that drive a belief that a stock’s price is destined to fall.

Giving oxygen to this flame, say through an in-depth rebuttal, only acts to fuel the initial accusations. The objective is to lower the stock and then buy back shares at a lower price – a process known as “covering” – to profit from the difference. A short seller does not seek a debate; they seek a profit. Beyond financial value to reputational value, it only takes 10 seconds to smear a reputation, and 10 months to scrub the wall clean.

This is a grim theatre that began playing out last week when Grizzly Research, a short seller led by Siegfried Eggert, released a report accusing the FTSE 100 firm Trustpilot of operating a “mafia-style extortion campaign”. My own principles refrain me from directly linking to the report from this humble Substack, as arguments made are a classic of this short seller genre.

The assault on Trustpilot

The report was conspiratorial, laced with the sort of hyperbolic adjectives that usually signal a weak argument, collecting a small number of examples to claim Trustpilot actively courts fake negative reviews to bully businesses into paying for subscriptions; a “pay-to-play” racket. The examples provided weren’t representative of Trustpilot’s size: 330 million active reviewers and 60 million monthly active users.

Trustpilot responded within hours,

“The Report presents a series of claims that are selective, misleading and framed to support a predetermined narrative. It omits key context and publicly available facts, creating a false impression and exhibits a lack of understanding of how Trustpilot works. Trust is our guiding principle and is central to everything we do.”

More importantly, the directors put their own capital on the line. CEO Adrian Blair, Chair Zillah Byng-Thorne, and CFO Hanno Damm all bought shares in the immediate aftermath. This further signalled confidence in the business.

The Trustpilot response offers a textbook study in strategic communications during a crisis of confidence. The temptation, when accused of being a “mafia” operation, is to shout. As I wrote earlier, one wants to issue a 50-page line-by-line rebuttal. But the strategic communicator knows that to do so is to grant the aggressor the status of a peer. By responding to every point, you legitimise the claims. You accept the premise that you are on trial.

Trustpilot avoided this trap. They denied the central thesis with brevity and then went back to work. The share purchases were the real communication.

In my own experience, the most vital lesson is to distinguish between the noise of the market and the signal of the business. The short seller relies on the “short and distort” tactic: take a kernel of complexity (e.g. Trustpilot’s open platform allows anyone to post, which naturally includes some bad actors), strip it of context, and present it as a systemic fraud.

The antidote is not to argue the complexity, but to demonstrate the simplicity of the value. Trustpilot is the standard for online trust; if it were truly a criminal enterprise, one suspects its millions of users and the scrutiny of the London Stock Exchange might have noticed before Grizzly Research arrived.

Trust is reputation, especially when it’s in your name

The Trustpilot share price has already begun to rebound, suggesting that the market’s immune system is functioning. Trustpilot plays a significant role in portraying the perceived reputations of companies in Google Search and in Generative AI results – so this crisis strikes at the heart of their business model.

The long-term imperative for Trustpilot is to further shed light on how they operate, work to correct bad actors seeking to manipulate the platform, and demonstrate that businesses that pay receive support but not manipulation. Trustpilot is a business well-positioned for sustainable growth, even more so given how Generative AI is changing online journeys.

… and in case you’re wondering, Trustpilot is not a client. Well done to their communications team and any agency that may have been supporting.

The report (found in full here) is based on surveys conducted between August 2024 – November 2024, across a representative sample of 1,004 journalists. It would be fair to assume that these numbers have only increased 12+ months later, and this may be an indication of global usage as well.

I’ve read through the report and pulled out the main bits that struck me as a communications professional.

A quiet revolution

AI’s integration into journalism is not just about flashy headlines or deepfakes. The most common uses are surprisingly practical: transcription, translation, grammar checking, and copy-editing. Nearly half of UK journalists use AI for transcription or captioning at least monthly, a third for translation, and 30% for grammar checking. But the technology is also creeping into more substantive areas such as story research, idea generation, headline writing, and even fact-checking.

This means that Gen AI is responsible for shaping the reputations of the entities we represent. It’s a profound shift, as typical online communication is about searching for information and making a human assessment. Now that the assessment is being made by Gen AI.

It’s a double-edged sword

Newsrooms have never faced such pressure: the relentless news cycle, consolidation of media titles, redundancies, changing news behaviours, and so on. Therefore, the promise of AI in journalism is clear: faster turnaround, broader coverage, and the ability to handle vast amounts of data.

But speed comes with risk. The Reuters Institute finds that journalists who use AI more frequently are not more satisfied with the time they spend on complex, creative tasks. Instead, they report spending more time on low-level tasks, such as cleaning data and checking AI output. In other words, AI hasn’t yet delivered the creative liberation some hoped for; instead, it’s introduced new layers of technical diligence.

This means that errors, whether factual inaccuracies or misinterpretations, can propagate quickly. The margin for error is slimmer, and the window for response is shorter.

This appears generational

The research reveals that younger journalists and those with higher levels of management responsibility are more frequent users of AI. Business journalists, in particular, are leading the charge: 43% use AI professionally at least weekly, compared to just 21% of lifestyle journalists.

This generational slant matters. Senior journalists who are often the ones making editorial decisions are more likely to see AI as an opportunity, while rank-and-file reporters remain sceptical. This means that the decision-makers shaping coverage of your organisation are increasingly comfortable with AI-driven processes. Understanding their workflows and concerns is now a strategic imperative.

Trust and transparency

Despite widespread adoption, UK journalists remain deeply pessimistic about AI’s impact on their profession. A striking 62% see AI as a “large” or “very large” threat to journalism, while only 15% see it as a significant opportunity. The top concerns? The potential negative impact on public trust, the value of accuracy, and the originality of journalistic content.

Journalists’ scepticism means they may scrutinise AI-generated content more closely, raising the bar for transparency and accountability. Whether a journalist or a communications professional, there is common ground to be found in advocating for responsible AI use, clear labelling, and robust fact-checking.

AI policy and procedures

Most UK journalists report that their main news publication has established some rules or guidelines around AI involving human oversight, data privacy, and transparency. However, only 27% say their publication has guidelines around bias and fairness. Training is also patchy: around a third of journalists say their organisation provides AI training.

This means that the standards governing AI use in newsrooms are still evolving.

This is an AI future but with increased scrutiny

Journalists overwhelmingly expect their main publication’s use of AI to increase in the future. The stance of most newsrooms is supportive, with internet-native titles particularly bullish. This means that AI-driven journalism is not a fad but a behavioral shift that will transform the profession.

With greater adoption comes greater scrutiny. Reuters Institute highlights that journalists with higher levels of AI knowledge are more concerned about ethical consequences, while daily users are less so. This divergence suggests that as AI becomes more embedded, expect debates about its ethical use to intensify.

It’s time to navigate the new normal

The adoption of AI by UK journalists is reshaping the media landscape in ways that are both subtle and profound. In the past, a company’s presence in Google Search used to matter but now you need to care about how your organisation and executives are appearing across a plethora of AI platforms.

The future of reputation management is being written, quite literally, by algorithms.

I analysed all 500+ sources Grokipedia uses to build the pages of FTSE 100 and discovered:

• 36% from institutional and regulatory websites such as academic journals, governments, and legal websites. It’s these sources that contribute extensive depth to articles and are responsible for flagging disputes and other historical issues.

• 35% from official company websites and investor relations pages. These are clearly the most reliable sources and show the importance of an updated and optimised website presence.

• 29% are earned media, ranging from specialized trade press, newswire-based reporting (such as a financial update in Reuters), and international media. Notably, 99% of the sources are in English and the content referenced is publicly accessible (no paywalls).

There was no evidence of social media references or sources from paid media sources. This was a surprise to our team, given news coverage about the supposedly equal weighting given to social media sources Vs reliable mainstream.

Where there are challenges

• Attribution dilution: For FTSE 100s, the sources are blended, which can blur the line between official facts and third-party commentary (e.g. an academic or legal text may come from a detractor, but is equally weighted with a corporate or government source).

• Data decay: It’s not clear how frequently links are verified, checked for bias or if they’re still live. Like other AI platforms, Grokipedia often links deep within websites to pages that can either be out of date or removed.

• Secondary interpretation: For key metrics, Grokipedia sometimes relies on financial aggregators rather than primary filings. This introduces the risk of minor inaccuracies or misinterpretations being amplified.

• No neutral point of view: Especially for companies in geopolitically sensitive sectors, Grokipedia’s penchant for deep historical context means that old controversies are permanently embedded in the corporate profile.

What this means for communications professionals

The first step is to understand how you’re being reflected and the sources being used to inform that image. Do everything you can to manage the sources Grokipedia relies upon, such as your website and media profile, which means taking an integrated approach to communications.

Grokipedia is new, likely to grow given its financial backing and brand, but this version will never replace Wikipedia’s authority as the ‘database of the internet’. It’s an aggregator, and truth be told, one that relies on Wikipedia for its content.

It’s a godly reminder of the significance of Jimmy Wales’ achievement in founding Wikipedia and the enormous effort of volunteers to build the internet’s largest freely accessible bank of knowledge. He is one of the original internet entrepreneurs, and after the inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, I would argue the most important. After all, it was Socrates who said, “Knowledge will make you be free”.

Jimmy’s contemporaries include the likes of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Larry Page – but the philosophical mission of the Wikimedia Foundation that “open access to knowledge is a fundamental right, and a driver for social and economic development” means becoming a billionaire ‘tech bro’ was never part of the objective for Jimmy. As we now find ourselves in a world full of volatility and violence, the efforts of Wikimedia and Wikipedia have never been more important.

Trust is the currency of the internet. Especially in an online environment that has been dominated by rampant ‘AI slop’ across social media, profound misinformation and disinformation, and other traditional communications sources are at an all-time trust low… even the BBC. It can be difficult to know where to turn, but the reassuring words of Jimmy is a good start.

His new book, The Seven Rules of Trust, reveals the key principles that led to Wikipedia’s success. He kindly agreed that I could interview him at Kekst CNC to explore what building Wikipedia can teach us about managing the trust of our organisations.

Purpose, process, and people

When Wikipedia launched, it was a revolutionary idea – an open wiki that anyone could edit. It succeeded only because of a clear purpose and a consistent process.

“With Wikipedia, one of the things that’s been very helpful… is that we have a very simple purpose: to create a free, high-quality, neutral encyclopedia. And that purpose defines everything we do, and defines the work, and defines the rules, and defines everything.”

This clarity of mission is not just a branding exercise. It’s the backbone of Wikipedia’s community management, guiding decisions about what behaviour is acceptable and what is not. “Have a good purpose. That central purpose has really helped a lot, and a lot flows from that,” Jimmy explains.

But purpose alone is not enough. The process matters too. Wikipedia’s rules, such as “no personal attacks”, are designed to foster civility and constructive disagreement.

“Unlike in social media, where personal attacks are kind of, like, what most people think it’s for, right? We said, no, no, no, you shouldn’t… we shouldn’t be attacking each other, you shouldn’t be attacking even people we’re writing about… it’s just not what we’re here for.”

This approach is not without its challenges. Jimmy is candid about the difficulties of managing a large, diverse community.

“The hard part is the person who is a really good contributor in terms of contributing good quality content, and they’re being massively rude to a bunch of people… At some point, you just have to say, yeah, look, sorry, if you can’t stop attacking people, you have to leave.”

Forgiveness and second chances are part of the culture, but so is accountability. “You shouldn’t get blocked or banned from the website for your first transgression, so there’s a lot of forgiveness… but there’s also a social expectation… if you’ve been horrible, you should apologise.”

Evidence and neutrality

If trust begins with purpose and process, it is sustained by evidence and neutrality. Jimmy is a stickler for reliable sources and balanced presentation.

“Read up on what counts as a reliable source… how you can manage to say, actually, this is an error, or this is not the full story… the typical kind of case would be, like… this is a criticism that’s out there, but you haven’t mentioned the company’s response, which was published here. That needs to be incorporated, and usually that gets pretty good results.”

He is clear-eyed about the limits of reputation management though.

“It’s not somewhere I’m going to be able to turn this into a PR puff piece, but I can make sure that if there’s facts, they’re presented correctly, there’s two sides of the story, we’ve got both sides, all that kind of stuff. That’s kind of the best you can do...”

This commitment to neutrality extends beyond Wikipedia to the wider media landscape. With large amounts of polarisation, Jimmy argues, the restoration of trust depends on a return to “old-fashioned journalistic neutrality, objectivity.”

AI tokens, hallucinations, and attribution

No conversation about trust in 2025 is complete without a discussion of AI. Jimmy is both fascinated and wary of the technology’s impact on knowledge and credibility.

He offers a technical critique of how Generative AI works:

“The way that it works is it’s always choosing the next token or the next word to be the most probable word, with a little randomness thrown in, which is why it gives different answers at the right time. And so, writing the most plausible thing isn’t the same thing as writing the most true thing, and so what you get is hallucinations. It goes down a path, and then it just keeps making stuff up because it sounds plausible and great, and it’s just completely wrong.”

He is adamant that AI is not yet ready to replace human editors. Whilst AI can write text that sounds convincing, it’s not the same as writing factually correct articles. The immediate opportunity for AI is to support but not supplant human judgment.

“I’ve written a little program… I feed in a short article, and I feed in the five sources, and I ask the question, is there anything in the sources that isn’t in Wikipedia, but should be? Or is there anything in the Wikipedia entry that is not supported by the sources? And it’s actually kind of okay… If a human could check it, like, that could be quite interesting, and it could help our community be more productive and so forth.”

But the risks are real. “The Wikimedia Foundation shouldn’t be using AI to produce content that’s shown directly to readers without humans checking it first. Because the risk is so high, because we’re quite particular about how things are done.”

Economics of trust

The rise of AI has not just changed how information is produced, but also how it is consumed. Jimmy is frank about the impact on Wikipedia’s traffic and infrastructure. “... there was a blog post recently that we’ve seen an 8% decline in visits from humans. That doesn’t mean a decline in traffic... we’ve seen an increase in visits from bots. So that’s concerning, but not, like, a panic case.”

The proliferation of bots crawling Wikipedia has real costs.

“The AI companies are crawling Wikipedia quite heavily, and it’s not just the big ones, but all kinds of startups and things like that. And they’re hammering our servers… So it turns out it’s a disproportionate hit on our costs, and because we’re a charity…”

For Jimmy, the key is attribution. “Our business model, we’re a charity business model, is not page views or ads. So losing page views doesn’t really matter. What matters is, as long as the public knows the information comes from us. In cases where they don’t know, you know, like, that would be a sad outcome.”

Anonymity and pseudonymity

Jimmy’s views on identity in online communities are nuanced and practical.

“In Wikipedia, when you go to sign off in Wikipedia to create a username, username can be anything. JoeBob123 or whatever, and people go by that. There’s a really very well-known Wikipedian called New York Brad. He’s one of the most respected Wikipedians. I happen to know he’s a partner in a law firm in New York, and his name is not Brad. But he’s a great guy. And people don’t know his real name… But the point is, he edits under the same identity. And so, in Wikipedia, your pseudonym is your reputation.”

Reputation is earned through consistent behaviour. “People do want to build a good reputation, because if you don’t have a good reputation, people don’t listen to you, and they get reverted, and so on and so forth.”

He distinguishes between pseudonymity and anonymity. “In some contexts, I think a real names policy is super important. So one of the examples, the case study in the book, is Airbnb… That’s an area where real names and real identity really matters. In other contexts, pseudonymathy is enough, as long as you’ve got a reputation that builds over time.”

He is critical of true anonymity, especially on platforms like Twitter (now X).

“Most of the times, if I go on… I post, it doesn’t matter what you post, so if I look, here’s my recipe for chocolate cake, you know, somebody’s gonna yell at you. Typically, I’ve never heard from them before, I’ll never hear from them again… When somebody’s behind an anonymous shield. They can be a juror for whatever reasons motivate them, and that’s that. And you’re never going to see them again, and it’s toxic.”

Trust as a collective endeavour

Jimmy’s reflections remind us that trust is not a static asset, but a dynamic process - built through purpose, process, evidence, and engagement. With the growth of AI and increase polarisation, the challenge is not just to find trustworthy sources, but to become trustworthy ourselves. Whether you’re a journalist, a communications professional, a business leader, the lessons from Wikipedia’s journey are clear: clarity, civility, evidence, and openness are the pillars on which trust is built. The rest is up to us.

They recognised that effective online communications is achieved by engaging online content and community discussion. This drew criticism from Lawrence Lessig, an internet theorist who criticised this closed model as a threat to the open nature of the internet. Although AOL’s 14,000+ network of volunteer editors and moderators could be seen as akin to an open-source movement, this was 5 years before Wikipedia launched in 2001.

It wasn’t until the late 2000s – 2010 that AOL began hiring hundreds of journalists, editors, and videographers to support its “content-first” business model, using data-led strategies to inform editorial decisions. The insights, strategies, content approaches, and measurement have arguably influenced how firms run their online marketing and communications to this day.

Gen AI and bots are changing the internet

It’s a strange coincidence that at the same time AOL closes its dial-up service next month, we’re seeing the online communications formula it started also reaching a transformative phase, caused by bots and changing search behaviours.

There are now an alarming number of bots on the internet. The cybersecurity company Thales latest report shows that bot traffic has now surpassed human traffic. Many of these bots are useful, enabling reputable services to run by crawling, monitoring, and scraping online content. Generative AI platforms deploy the likes of AppleBot and ClaudeBot to source references for responses. It’s part of a growing Bots-As-A-Service (BaaS) commercialisation of the internet.

Parallel to the bot boom is a behavioural shift in human search behaviour. According to Bain & Company, 60% of Google searches now end without a click, and 80% of people rely on “zero-click” results in at least 40% of searches. Since the publication of this report, Google has also launched AI Mode that will further drive behavioural change. Pew Research states that a worrying 26% of people end their browsing session entirely after viewing an AI summary.

This commercial impact feels like a betrayal by Google

The impact is being felt by business, especially when it comes to shaping online reputations. Only one company I’ve spoken to in the last 6 months has claimed ChatGPT is an important referral source for their business, but I do wonder if this has been filtered for bot activity.

Google will argue that traffic is being redistributed to high-quality online sources like forums and videos. For companies, this redistribution can feel more like erosion, and means shaping narratives and pushing marketing requires a revised approach. Online publishers have reported traffic declines of 70% or more, and behind the scenes, corporates are trying to understand how to best adapt to this new search landscape.

Ironically, companies that have well-optimised ‘traditional’ traffic model websites may be feeling the pain the most. A successful content strategy will likely lead to bots crawling the website effectively and serving results to Gen AI. Whilst this may mean messages are still reaching audiences, companies that need this website traffic for conversion may see a loss of visibility, engagement and revenue (which is why publishers have been so vocal).

Transform or be left behind

It means your online communications strategy needs reviewing fast, as the progression of Gen AI will correlate with how companies and executives are profiled online. In the short term identify how bots could be distorting your analytics, what your latest audience preferences and journeys are showing, and use insights to inform your active communications strategy.

AOL’s transition from a tech utility provider to a content hub was a masterclass in engineering the internet for human experiences. In these times of change, it’s worth considering what AI can’t offer. Perhaps that’s an experience…

The post More bots and fewer clicks: why your communications strategy needs rethinking appeared first on White PR.

It has meant that the first page of Google is no longer the only space where reputational perceptions are shaped. Gen AI means that editor discrepancy and choice is not accounted for as responses come without human oversight. Information is bundled together from a variety of online sources – sometimes even confidently hallucinated – to shape narratives to audiences actively seeking information. Gen AI’s influence on reputation management cannot be ignored.

If you want to manage how your brand, executives, or products are being perceived in Gen AI responses, then here is some guidance:

Reputation management is multichannel

If the link is public and crawlable, then Gen AI can see it. Google Search’s index still matters, but unlike the first page of Google’s results, Gen AI digs deep into websites to reveal potentially relevant information. Think Wikipedia, Reddit, corporate websites, international, local and trade media, niche blogs, YouTube, TikTok – the list feels endless. It means reputation management in 2025 must be multichannel as the days of addressing one Financial Times article (for example) are over.

Source diversity will dig up the past

The diversity of sources is both a blessing and a curse. It means that well-structured, up-to-date owned content such as FAQs and thought leadership can surface in Gen AI responses. However, it also means that negative or inaccurate information, even if a historic issue, is resurfaced for the world to see long after it has faded from the news cycle. Watch out for how divisive issues are referenced in diverse sources as this may be impacting audience perceptions.

Daily volatility impacts source weighting

Managing how Gen AI responds to prompts has required the development of a reputation management framework. It recognises that whilst there is a weighting behind the sources used (like a page rank), the volatility is driven by the dynamic nature of Gen AI sourcing. For instance, the prevalence of a negative news article can be de-weighted as a source but can be replaced by another even if from a social platform like Reddit. There isn’t a journalist or editor you can phone about this issue, only a data-led strategy can rectify.

Silence isn’t a strategy

“Let’s wait and see if this goes away” doesn’t apply to Gen AI. Certain reputational issues may require a direct response, with attempts to ignore or bury controversies unlikely to be successful. Fact-based, well-structured responses, published strategically, will often lead to a balance to topics rich in reputational significance. Arguably, this is why audiences like Gen AI, because of its ability to search through the noise of traditional search results to reveal. However, it does completely change the considerations behind reputation management decisions. Good practice means reputation should be handled transparently and directly, offering Gen AI useful content to inform responses.

Volatile responses require daily monitoring

Over the last 12 months, there has been a rush by global communications tool providers to offer accurate and reliable monitoring across Gen AI platforms. History shows us that communications professionals were slow to adopt Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) techniques in comparison to marketing disciplines. However, the same can’t be said in 2025, as tracking Gen AI in turn requires an AI-powered solution to track.

For all of Gen AI’s technical sophistication, our underlying lesson is a human one. Reputation is not only shaped by public opinion, but by what Gen AI chooses to surface. The most successful communicators will be those who understand the science behind Gen AI, the art of storytelling, and have the empathy to understand what is really impacting audience perceptions and behaviours.

The post Gen AI’s influence on reputation management shouldn’t be underestimated appeared first on White PR.

The research includes 4,164 business leaders across eight markets (France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Japan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and US) and reveals how senior decision makers prefer to consume their news, use social media, and engage broadly with digital communications channels. It confirms anecdotal feedback from professional communicators that the online landscape continues to shift and that communications strategies must adjust accordingly.

Whilst 74% of business leaders still read physical newspapers and magazines, 80% confirm daily reading of online news and 88% use social media daily. The top used social networks during 2024 were:

When comparing the growing use of TikTok with LinkedIn, the expected generational differences between higher usage by millennials VS Gen X is true for both platforms. Data shows that TikTok usage is highest in Saudi Arabia, US, and UK, whereas LinkedIn usage is high across all countries especially France, Germany, and the UK.

This aligns with a growing preference for video content as 89% watch videos on mobile devices and 46% prefer short videos (defined as under 10 minutes). This is a mobile-first audience.

What does this mean for communicators?

• Refresh your audience research: If this hasn’t been done over the last 12 months, this needs sense-checking based on the quickly evolving digital landscape.

• Adjust your strategy: Especially to make sure your communications work in a mobile- first world, consider growing social networks, and using different content formats.

• Be personal and professional: LinkedIn still holds an important place as a professional social network, but don’t be limited by it – senior business leaders are more active on personal social networks.

The post C-Suite leaders’ growing use of TikTok and other social media statistics appeared first on White PR.

What are community notes?

This moderation used on X was designed in 2020 to emulate professional fact-checking. It relies upon social media engagement around content to invite everyday users to check whether a claim is factual. Practically, tweets on X often appear with a fact box underneath to provide a summary showing the credibility of the content.

Despite its launch on X five years ago, there is nothing new about using the power of communities on social media to assess the credibility of content. It’s akin to a ‘Web 2.0’ peer-review process, and Wikipedia is the best-known crowd-sourcing project that relies on this type of collaborative truth searching.

Do community notes work?

Off the back of Meta’s announcement in January 2025 that it would replace professional fact-checkers with Community Notes, The London School of Economics published an article about the accuracy of this crowd-sourced approach. It referenced research that verified:

1.     Community notes are found to have a 97% accuracy rating.

2.     This form of fact-checking system does work on X, leading to an 80% chance that the perpetrating author deletes their original tweet.

3.     … unfortunately, community notes are slow to verify information and often aren’t used.

In practice…

Modern social media algorithms are designed to show us what we want to see and engage with, leading to tribes connected by common ideologies. The best social networks do this effectively, often driving tension and conflict between communities. In practice, this means that community notes can be ineffective due to the lack of different perspectives.

For example, during the Los Angeles wildfires, a conspiracy-oriented X account baselessly claimed that authorities started the fires to destroy evidence of underground child-trafficking tunnels. The tweet posted on 9th January 2025 has 4.3 million views but still doesn’t have a community note.

What does this mean for professional communicators?

The role of the corporate website has re-emerged as your source of truth – invest here to ensure your story is heard without manipulation or influence.

It’s never been more important to track mentions of your brand and executives across multiple communications channels to protect your reputation.

The partisan leanings and nature of social networks should be considered before any engagements, especially as independent fact-checking is decommissioned.

The post Fact check: Do community notes work? appeared first on White PR.

Organisations have never been more focused on developing a model of resilience to navigate the complexities and dangers of this fast-turning ‘zero trust’ media landscape – why should anyone trust anything?

In 2022, the risks presented by misinformation and disinformation were not understood in the mainstream. The narrative quickly shifted this year as the World Economic Forum (WEF) included these threats for the first time in its annual risk report. They’re a top 10 risk and are considered the biggest threat facing the world in a landmark election year.

The public availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies has certainly informed WEF’s risk ranking. In recent months we’ve seen an AI-generated video impact Zara, ‘leaked’ fake audio footage of London Mayor Sadiq Khan claiming that Armistice Day events should be postponed for a pro-Palestinian march, and fake harmful images of Taylor Swift lead to global condemnation.

If I ask you to think of a social network at the heart of misinformation spread, then you’ll probably think X/Twitter following the business’ turbulent transformation and the likes of Foreign Policy magazine calling the network “… a sewer of disinformation”. Contrary to this, the journalist investigators at NewsGuard have recently identified YouTube as a Russian disinformation incubator.

In just six months, NewsGuard identified seven viral false claims about Ukraine that were seeded on anonymous YouTube channels before spreading further. Claims included that Ukraine had assassinated a journalist and false narratives connected to President Zelensky. These are not harmless online narratives but instead details that have been referenced as truth by members of U.S. Congress before.

Typically businesses have been slow to respond to risk and instead react once a crisis hits, although perhaps even this is changing. Rebecca Pardon in Communicate Magazine evidences the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank – so-called the “first Twitter-fuelled bank run” – to show many organisations are still ill-equipped to deal with social crisis and misinformation spread. Detecting manipulated content is fast becoming a hygiene requirement of managing communications.

As the timeliness of this new article suggests, the bulging deluge of harmful content created and shared online is keeping us busy at Kekst CNC. To remain at the forefront takes serious time and investment, which is partly why our parent company Publicis has announced its €300mn AI strategy investment. We’re on the same journey.

The post Misinformation recognised as a major threat to governments, businesses, and society in 2024 appeared first on White PR.

If you look a bit deeper though, an estimated 214 of these profiles were part of a bot network. Together, they were responsible for 169,000 posts on X – that’s a whopping average of 789 posts per profile.

Beyond social media, NewsGuard ratings reveal that 1,537 websites mentioned COP28 are known for publishing false information in the past or not fully disclosing ownership or advertising.

Combined, X and online news analysis reveal the following damaging narratives were circulating during COP28 and the subsequent negotiations:

1. Criticism of COP28 itself. Many tweets and articles suggest that the conference is dominated by oil producers and does not adequately address the climate emergency. It’s a mainstream concern, given the COP28 President is Al Jaber who is the CEO of UAE’s National Oil Company Adnoc, and an issue very publicly flagged by Al Gore this year. However, it’s important to note that the conference is also attended by representatives from a wide range of countries and industries, including renewable energy companies and environmental organizations. Fundamentally, it’s an event that must focus on an energy transition. To dismiss the entire event as a “Cabal of Oil Producers” is to oversimplify a complex and nuanced issue.

2. A prevalence of conspiracy theories and globalist agendas. Headlines suggest hidden motives or agendas behind the conference, such as globalist control and manipulation. This kind of thinking can lead to mistrust and polarization, contributing towards a zero-trust environment that makes it challenging for anyone to believe anything and for companies to communicate their efforts.

3. Misrepresentation or distortion of facts. With certain publications presenting misleading or inaccurate information related to climate change such as “climate change is not threatening human health”, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the inclusion of the topic in the COP agenda for the first time in recognition of this fact. This kind of misinformation can be harmful, as it undermines efforts to address the very real and pressing issue of climate change. It also calls into question the motives for such an article to appear and whether it was state or corporately-backed.

4. Biased or one-sided reporting has appeared. For example, an article titled “Fossil Fuel/COP28: Where Fossil Fuel Industries Go to Gloat” clearly has an agenda against the energy industry and doesn’t present a balanced view of the conference.

5. Attacks on credibility and authority has been another damaging trend. Headlines that undermine the legitimacy of individuals, organizations, or events associated with the conference can be damaging and counterproductive. For example, one article criticises UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres for declaring that fossil fuels must stop being burned because it would “destroy the lives of billions of people” and is “anti-human, anti-progress, and extremely disturbing…”. This kind of rhetoric only serves to further polarize the conversation and distract from the real issues at hand.

The role of bots on X acted to increase the spread of such articles and like-minded content. The online discourse around COP28 reveals a troubling trend of misinformation, mistrust, and polarization. For businesses, COP28 further shows that misinformation is a mainstrea

The post Bots and unreliable websites spread COP28 misinformation appeared first on White PR.

Predicting the twists of human affairs, much like AI itself, is no straightforward endeavor. The recent spectacle at the UK’s AI Safety Summit held at the historic Bletchley Park epitomizes this unpredictability. The US proclaimed an executive order on AI regulation and the establishment of its very own AI safety institute right on the inaugural day of the UK’s summit. This audacious move boldly reaffirms the US’ commitment to self-regulation, as it reaffirms its dominance as a leader.

During the summit, the US Vice President, Kamala Harris asserted in London,

“… when it comes to AI, America is a global leader… it is America that can catalyse global action and build global consensus in a way that no other country can.”

The domain of AI has become a fierce battleground of political and economic dominion. In comparison, the UK’s summit did something that no leader has done before – traverse geopolitical tensions to bring a diverse group of leaders from countries, companies, and academic institutions, to agree an international pledge to manage AI harms.

This momentous gathering culminated in the signing of ‘The Bletchley Declaration,’ gathering support from 28 countries and the European Union, and, remarkably, even China. Nevertheless, skeptics remained, dismissing the declaration as a symbolic gesture bereft of tangible enforcement mechanisms.

Deep-seated challenges of AI regulation persist, spanning the realms of genuine international collaboration, the compilation of a comprehensive global inventory of recognized harms, the synchronization of regulation with the relentless march of technological innovation, and, not the least, crafting economic solutions to address the transformation of the labor market. The catalogue of obstacles is vast, and for a more in-depth analysis, check out my previous blog post.

The Financial Times’ Stephen Bush described the summit’s outcome as,

“… any prospect that the UK can be a world leader in that field and not a mere convener of talking shops is a bit of a fantasy, so: failure…”

Nations and corporations shared their opinions and positions. From the doomsday prophecies of Elon Musk, foretelling an AI-driven job apocalypse, to the slightly more optimistic musings of Nick Clegg, who believes that existential fears were being exaggerated – the spectrum of views was wide. Musk’s presence, for some attendees, bordered on the distracting, with his cataclysmic warnings often drowning out nuanced discussions, thus contributing to a sensationalized narrative.

Meanwhile, as the world’s elites grapple with the profound implications of cutting-edge AI technologies, companies continue to confront the daily challenges posed by AI’s relentless march.

The post AI Safety Summit reveals tensions and unaddressed risks appeared first on White PR.

Chatham House ran an ‘on the record’ event to dissect and discuss the UK AI Safety Summit with some of the world’s leading experts:

• Professor Yoshua Bengio, Department of Computer Science and Operations Research at Université de Montréal

• Jean Innes, CEO, The Alan Turing Institute

• Katie O’Donovan, Director of Public Policy, Google UK

• Francine Bennet, Interim Director, Ada Lovelace Institute

• Zoe Kleinman, Technology Editor, BBC

 The context of the summit comes at a time when international cooperation appears limited, geopolitical tensions may harm collaboration, and competing regulatory structures are evident. As Chatham House says,

“From the US and UK’s self-regulatory, decentralised model to Europe’s risk-based, prescriptive approached enshrined in the EU AI Act. There is also the state-led, information control model adopted by China.”

It was an eye-opening conversation, revealing the diverse spectrum of risks that AI presents. Foremost among these risks is the potential for misuse by bad actors, who could employ AI in highly concerning ways. Given my work as part of Kekst CNC Intelligence, there are applications I’m all too aware of given private companies face such AI-driven coordinated attacks.

The development and regulation of AI technologies is complicated, but I’ve captured the main points of discussion:

The summit will primarily focus on ‘frontier risks’. These are the risks that arise from the training and development of the most advanced AI models, rather than the risks arising from specific applications. This was an immediate reflection point as publicly available technologies are already having a tangible impact; from 14 year olds being blamed for cheating in exams to open source language models that can design deadly chemical components for bioweapons. It’s not just the frontier that matters.

AI models never act as intended. One glaring challenge that emerged during the discussions was the inability to build AI systems that consistently behave as intended, adhering to values, norms, and cultural expectations. The current AI race, marked by intense competition and rapid advancements, has heightened the urgency of focusing on safety.

Threat to democratic processes that are characterised by threat actors using disinformation campaigns to manipulate democratic processes. This is already happening today, but the availability of new technologies means such campaigns can achieve greater scale, better language translations for mimicry, and fake content to drive agendas. The very essence of democracy is to prevent the concentration of power, and as AI evolves, democracies need to put the right safeguards in place.

Transformation of the job market as AI systems take on tasks previously performed by humans. Earlier this month, Microsoft began previewing its Copilot technology to select organisations showcasing a tool’s capability to draft emails, reply to email chains, and create PowerPoint presentations based on notes. It’s just one basic impact that will drastically impact certain jobs – once a task has been automated, what task replaces it? New jobs will come in time but there will be a difficult period of transformation in-between.

It’s not all doom and gloom though as discussions eventually turned to positive real-world applications of AI. From healthcare to public services, AI is being employed to read eye scans, predict the onset of cancers, and aided UK hospital management during the pandemic. It also has the potential to alleviate the administrative burden on stressed public services. Projects like using Google Translate make the internet accessible to diverse cultures by translating local dialects.

Tracking and addressing AI-related harms isn’t something that’s happening today, which is crucial given AI systems don’t typically follow commonly accepted morals and values. Experts acknowledged the need to develop capabilities to monitor and mitigate such harms, convincing countries to invest in these capabilities.

One key need identified is for swift and responsive regulation. It’s difficult to govern AI at the speed of democracy, let alone international coordination. To counter this, ideas were shared for how to approach regulations:

The UK’s ambition to coordinate a global approach. Whilst the UK is not endowed with the deep pockets of tech giants, it does play home to some of the best minds in the world. It’s a bold move to seek the involvement of delegates from China, but such collaboration and diversity of thought is needed to foster change. Experts argued for the inclusion of all perspectives, even those from countries with which the West has strained relationships.

A call for licensing and compute monitoring as only a handful of companies possess the capabilities to build the required chips for advanced AI systems. This, in turn, calls for greater government scrutiny and the question of whether governments should have the right to monitor these developments. How about the registration of the largest AI models? Companies and developers must be held accountable.

Governance of AI emerged as a monumental challenge, especially in the context of its breakneck speed of development. As the reputation and economic impact of AI technology continue to grow, particularly concerning its role in the dissemination of disinformation, the need for regulation becomes increasingly apparent. Could the UN’s approach to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change provide inspiration for an AI equivalent?

Geopolitical diversity matters as the panel underscored the importance of diversity in the geopolitical control of AI. To prevent AI from being used for political or military benefits, the powers steering AI development must be varied and should prioritize principles that align with human rights and peaceful purposes, rather than offensive military applications. In addition, the experts stressed the need for a global and public voice in shaping the conversation around AI governance.

Private sector engagement in AI governance was also highlighted as crucial. Companies play a pivotal role in AI development and should be actively involved in shaping the regulatory framework. The rapid pace of AI development poses challenges for regulators, and the need for private sector input was emphasized, considering the inadequacies of self-regulation, such as that seen in social media platforms.

The need for standards in AI is something The Alan Turing Institute has begun working on with the launch of the AI Standards Hub, a UK initiative dedicated to standardising AI technologies and facilitating knowledge sharing.

The call for inclusive global conversations, swift but thoughtful regulation, and diverse representation in AI development and governance highlights the urgency and complexity of managing AI responsibly. All eyes are now on next week’s AI Safety Summit.

The post Experts at Chatham House discuss AI risks and regulation ahead of AI Safety Summit appeared first on White PR.

Assessing the publications to understand which ‘should be approached with caution’ is made stress-free thanks to NewsGuard’s team of trained journalists who catalog and track false narratives. So based on their methodology that leads to scoring, it’s then a manual process to really dig into the narratives making the rounds online.

According to my research, 100+ publications assessed to spread mis- and disinformation regularly covered FTSE 100 companies. These publications have a growing reach but are not typically picked up through traditional media monitoring – 348,000 social media shares of non-credible information, amounting to 9,650,000 overall impressions.

The research indicates that Generative AI may be used to maximise the negative impact of disinformation. A recent paper from GCHQ and The Alan Turing Institute said that large language models improved the ability of sophisticated actors to launch disinformation campaigns and “enabled less sophisticated actors and opportunists to potentially cause significant damage, thus lowering the barrier to entry for nefarious actors”

The sectors most negatively impacted during H1 2023 were financial services (28%), retail (27%), and energy (8%). Whilst every industry is impacted by potential mis- and disinformation, reporting time periods make a significant difference. For example, healthcare companies became the top target during COVID-19.

With the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) on countering climate change taking place in the United Arab Emirates from November 2023, disinformation about companies covered during the event is likely to rise.

The rise of AI means disinformation can spread at an unprecedented scale. But very few organisations have built the necessary resilience into their communications operations.

The post Global companies under daily assault from misinformation and disinformation appeared first on White PR.