Information Threats Don’t Need Louder Comms, They Need Better Comms

By Dan Harrison, Senior Strategist

For many working in government communications, RESIST is no longer new. Late last year the newest edition was published, RESIST 3, but for many it has simply joined the growing collection of acronyms and frameworks that communicators are vaguely aware of but rarely pick up. It sits on the shelf alongside MCOM, OASIS, evaluation cycles, and crisis playbooks.

It's familiar enough to reference in a meeting, but not something most people have read cover to cover or actively use in their day to day work. This is particularly true when it comes to mis and disinformation, an area which only directly applies to a small percentage of communicators.

RESIST 3 is a shift in posture. Away from reaction, rebuttal, and noise-chasing. Towards resilience, judgement, and disciplined decision-making in an information environment that is faster, more fragmented, and less forgiving than the one most comms functions were built for.

Today, we live in an environment where a local issue can escalate nationally in hours, trust is brittle across institutions and information is more fragmented than ever.

RESIST 3 offers something increasingly rare: permission not to act, and clarity on when action genuinely matters.

“The role of government is not to respond to every piece of manipulated, false or misleading information.” – RESIST 3

RESIST 3 is a decision-making framework, not a checklist

In its simplest form, RESIST 3 walks communicators through six stages. From recognising information threats through to tracking effectiveness;

1. Recognise mis- and disinformation
2. Early warning
3. Situational insight
4. Impact analysis
5. Strategic communication
6. Tracking effectiveness

These steps are not new, nor are they wildly out of scope for us as communicators.

But what is often missed is the intent. The so what.

The focus is structured restraint. It forces communicators to interrogate:

· Who is actually being influenced?

· What vulnerability is being exploited?

· Does this content meaningfully affect our objectives, audiences, or operational space?

· And crucially, what happens if we intervene versus if we do not?

It’s about helping you make decisions rather than just taking action.

What this changes in practice for communications leaders

For communicators, adopting RESIST 3 properly changes three things.

     1. Success is no longer visibility led.

The absence of a public response can be the right outcome. RESIST 3 legitimises quiet mitigation, upstream prevention, and internal alignment over reactive statements.

     2. Insight becomes as important as output.

Situational insight is not just monitoring data. It’s not a fancy dashboard with flashy numbers. Insight is shared understanding across policy, operations, analysts and leadership.

“Insight is a form of analysis that turns interesting data into actionable data” – RESIST 3

     3. Communications becomes a resilience capability.

The most effective response to information threats is often shaped months earlier. Through using trusted messengers, clear narratives, institutional credibility, and audiences primed to discount manipulation.

RESIST 3 reframes comms as infrastructure, not intervention.

Common blind spots

Even experienced teams fall into predictable traps. RESIST 3 poses several uncomfortable questions:

• Are we over-indexing on platforms we can see, while missing quieter but more influential spaces?
• Are we measuring noise rather than impact?
• Do we confuse public rebuttal with accountability?
• Are we incentivised internally to respond, rather than to decide well?

What these questions raise are vulnerabilities that are often home grown. RESIST 3 makes clear that resilience starts at home.