How to Communicate Stability When Disinformation Sets the Pace.
Last week, I gave a keynote speech on the dangers of deepfakes and AI-generated fake news. And I experienced a moment that told me more about our current situation than any technical demo could.
Well-informed listeners, who otherwise scrutinize every figure in meetings and assess risks with great objectivity, were deeply unsettled. It was only then that many realized how quickly a credible fake can be created today: a video, an alleged recording, a screenshot, an audio message—and all presented in such a way that it “must be true” at first glance.
This is the point at which deepfakes shift from an IT issue to a leadership issue. Because in times of crisis, people don’t check facts first. They check signals: Does leadership appear clear or erratic? Presence or radio silence? A clear line or mere actionism?
Leadership is first and foremost reflected in language
And that brings us to the real danger: The fake itself isn’t the problem. The problem is the vacuum it fills. In an already tense situation—political uncertainty, breakdowns, cost pressures, delays, unrest within teams—a “credible” impulse is enough to amplify uncertainty. Then organizations often react with exactly what appears to the outside world as a loss of control: frantic updates, hedging phrases, contradictory interim reports.
Calm is not a feeling in such moments. Calm is a protocol.
I’ve been working with the G.A.M.E. Code in training sessions for years—not as theory, but as a quick framework before the first sentence is even released to the public: Goal, Audience, Message, Extras. What is our goal? Who do we need to reach right now—rationally and emotionally? What is the core message in one sentence? And which few extras support it without getting lost in details?
Nikolai A. Behr on the dangers to the economy and society posed by deepfakes and AI-generated fake news. Photo: DIKT GmbH
If you hold responsibility as a CEO/executive or in HR, a simple sequence often helps in practice—especially when not everything is clear yet:
1) Be “communicative” for the first 60 minutes—without speculation. Three sentences are enough to get started: What we know. What we’re verifying. When the next update will be. That sounds trivial, but it’s often the difference between leadership and a rumor mill. In crises, speed counts—even if not everything is finalized yet.
2) Clarify responsibilities before an emergency strikes. When a deepfake is suspected, ten people don’t need to debate; instead, three roles must be clear: Who verifies authenticity? Who makes the decision? Who speaks? Many companies have contingency plans for IT outages—but no clear communication chain for a crisis. This comes back to haunt them precisely in the moments when calm is most needed.
3) Visible leadership beats perfect PR. When employees and the public are uncertain, what counts isn’t the “most polished phrasing,” but presence, empathy, and clarity. The CEO must step forward—not the PR team. And micro-messages always play a role here: tone of voice, pace, pauses, eye contact. You can say “We have everything under control”—and still convey uncertainty.
Ultimately, what matters isn’t whether you can prevent every piece of misinformation. That won’t be possible. What matters is whether your communication remains steady when the situation is still unstable.
If you want to prepare your leadership team for precisely this new risk landscape—crisis communication plus deepfake/disinformation scenarios, including statement and Q&A training—then: Starting in mid-April, we have available dates again for in-house formats.
Until then: Stay vigilant and don’t believe everything people try to make you believe.
(First published on LinkedIn)