DOs and DON’Ts for Communicating in Response to Violence
The guidance below comes from Over Zero, an organization founded in response to the global need to counteract and prevent identity-based violence and other forms of group-targeted harm. Over Zero is a partner of the Safe Communities Coalition, of which the Grand Canyon Synod is a member. This coalition, co-founded by the Arizona Faith Network, is a bold, inclusive initiative uniting faith communities, advocacy partners, and historically marginalized groups to protect sacred spaces and ensure all people can live, worship, and gather in safety.
We are in a moment of intense polarization, widespread misinformation, and an environment of heightened threat. Local and other influential leaders have the visibility, credibility, and trust to help prevent, de-escalate, and even heal from intimidation, division, confusion, and violence. What you say and do can help set positive behavioral expectations and reaffirm your community’s commitment to peaceful democratic processes–especially when you are coordinating with other leaders across sectors, ideologies, and spheres of influence.
However, communication during contentious times is challenging–especially when addressing fraught situations like voter intimidation, political violence, and misinformation.
It’s a delicate and difficult balance to strike: Leaders must respond promptly and clearly to violence, intimidation, and misinformation without inadvertently adding momentum or legitimacy to the very things they’re trying to prevent or resolve.
The below guidance offers considerations and approaches for leaders to respond to violence. For messaging in response to specific scenarios, see this series. For more details on responding to and correcting misinformation, see here.
GOALS: What outcomes are you trying to achieve?
Proactive communications can help prevent violence and threats of violence from happening in the first place. If they do happen, the primary short-term communications goals are to de-escalate, prevent further violence, and protect people’s democratic and human rights. There are important trade-offs to consider here: For example, asking people to stay home would theoretically keep them safe, but at the expense of their right to vote or protest peacefully.
The long-term goals of incident response are to help address the underlying issues that create risk and to build resiliency through communities connected by shared identities and norms. Communication alone can’t achieve these things, but it’s an important piece of the puzzle.
RISKS: What outcomes are you trying to avoid?
The primary outcome to avoid is inadvertently making things worse. Sensational communication about violence, voter intimidation, and misinformation can beget more of the same. The need to move quickly when an incident arises, coupled with the near-instantaneous, exponential spread of social media content, heightens the risk. Leaders and journalists must continue to plan ahead to ensure incident responses prevent, rather than escalate, further violence.
BEST PRACTICES: Dos and Don’ts of incident response
Broadly speaking, when responding to political violence and related risks, we consider the “three As” of rapid response: appeal, affirm, and act. First, we want to draw as many people as possible to our message and away from political violence by appealing to shared identities and values. Next, once we have their attention, we want to unite this audience by affirming who we are and what we believe, by setting positive norms that assert what is and is not acceptable action. And finally, we want to empower the audience to act though both highlighting all the positive actions that are already underway and proposing additional, specific avenues for getting involved in defusing risks for violence and building long-term resilience.
Throughout our communications, we want to avoid making violence appear more widespread or accepted than it is, deepening a sense of fear or chaos, and raising the profile of violent actors. We elaborate on these dos and don’ts below and in the scenario-specific messaging that follows.
We outline general best practices below, then apply them in more detail, in the scenario-specific sections that follow.
In every situation, it is always best to consider your audience—their experiences and emotions—and meet them where they are to provide a way forward.
CONSIDERATIONS
Points to consider before responding
Intent: What is the intent of the violence, intimidation, or unlawful action? If it is to intimidate, sow chaos, deter public participation, or normalize violence, you must take care not to inadvertently advance those aims through your response. Review the below Dos and Don’ts to ensure responses de-escalate conflict, rather than exacerbate it.
Affected communities: If a specific community has been targeted with violence, threats, or intimidation, always check in with that community to ensure your response addresses their priorities and needs, and centers their voices. Highlighting the impact of violence on victims and communities rather than focusing on perpetrators can avoid legitimizing or glorifying violence, and shift the narrative towards the consequences instead, while also elevating targeted communities’ perspectives and any requests for support.
Your sources: Always verify information before sharing it. If you are addressing rumors or misinformation, identify and share the correct information prior to (and ideally instead of) repeating any misinformation. Follow best practices for correcting misinformation to avoid inadvertently contributing to its spread, even in the context of a rebuttal.
Timing: Rather than simply producing a fast response, ensure a timely response. This means balancing speed with care and accuracy. Develop protocols ahead of time that establish a clear line of approval so you can avoid bureaucratic delays; at the same time, know when to pause and wait for more information. It is better to say you don’t know than to use vague, speculative, or inaccurate language.
The messenger: Even the most perfectly crafted message can fall flat if it is delivered by the wrong person. Know when you are not the right messenger for a given audience, and identify and recruit credible individuals who can help deliver and/or amplify your message. Developing a multi-messenger strategy may help you reach and influence a broader cross-section of people who might not normally be receptive to your message.
Your audience: No matter the specific situation, it is always best to consider your audience, their experiences and emotions, and meet them where they are at to provide a way forward.
DOs:
The hallmarks of skillful incident response communication
Unequivocally denounce violence: Be clear in denouncing the violence that occurred, and speak out against further violence. Retaliatory violence is always a risk, and can spur cycles of violence and government crackdowns. People may feel pain, grievance, and fear in the wake of violence, and it’s important to set them on a different path forward. Lift up condemnations from other voices, especially from any in-group members or "surprise speakers" you might not expect to disavow the violence.
Respect and show empathy: Show empathy and solidarity for
those impacted by violence.Connect: Work to understand and connect with your audience on an emotional level. They may be feeling fear, anxiety, confusion, or exhaustion in the face of violence. How can you connect with them and help them move towards a sense of agency, defiance against violence, safety, belonging? Work directly with other community leaders to build credibility and trust with a range of audiences.
Activate shared identities: Shared identities can help people see themselves as part of a larger group standing against violence. This can be based on geography (e.g., “we in Durham”), a professional identity (e.g., “as veterans”), or other identities that transcend current dividing lines (e.g., “moms/parents”). Highlight these identities through imagery and messengers as well as language.
Affirm your commitment: Reinforce your and your community’s commitment to nonviolence, to addressing underlying grievances where relevant, and to core democratic values and processes (e.g., ensuring that everyone is able to safely vote, express concerns, or gather for peaceful protest).
Be precise, specific, and accurate about the scope of violence that has occurred: Minimize space for speculation, misinformation, or rumors; if something is not yet known, say so.
Get the full story (or at least, all the available, confirmed information) before speaking out about specifics. Avoid repeating unfounded or speculative claims, lest you lend them legitimacy. Stick to consistent messaging around confirmed facts and positive norms. This does not preclude broader positive messaging in the meantime, such as positive norm setting and activating unifying identities. (See below.)
Be specific about exactly what happened and who was involved.
Name specific locations rather than full cities or states, and be specific about the scope of the violence and who was involved. For example, saying, “There was violence at protests” is vague and potentially misleading if in fact the violence was perpetrated by police or a small group of individuals.Avoid creating a sense that violence is more widespread, normalized, or inevitable than it is. Precision and specificity, as outlined above, are key. Avoid language that activates fear or anxiety, such as natural disaster metaphors (e.g., “violence erupted,” or “protestors flooded the streets”) or dehumanizing language that likens people to disease or animals, such as “swarms of people.”
Amplify accurate information. Circulate and elevate clear and accurate information before rumors, speculation, and misinformation can take hold. Lift up trusted and credible resources for your audience, so they have a source for information as it unfolds.
Place incidents in their appropriate context.
Historical and current context: Include information about the broader context, including histories and underlying dynamics of violence, especially if some groups have been repeatedly and historically targeted.
Proportional context: Include the size of any concurrent peaceful actions (e.g., If there is voter intimidation, how many people are showing up to ensure that their community can vote safely? If there is violence in the context of a protest, how many people were protesting and showing up peacefully?).
Build agency and make a positive call to action:
In our communication, we don’t want violence and those promoting it to be the main character—and we don’t want to let violent actors succeed in disempowering our communities from taking peaceful action. We want to show that violence is broadly rejected, that actions are being taken to address it, and that we all have a role to play.Share stories of how people are responding to build a sense of power and agency to address violence and build peaceful communities. Highlight existing responses—legal and policy responses, including investigations into and accountability for the violence; and processes for bringing diverse groups together to address underlying issues.
Give people constructive, legitimate, nonviolent ways to take action, such as supporting communities impacted by violence, publicly affirming their commitment to democratic norms, using legitimate pathways to express grievances, and so on. Model these behaviors and share stories of others who do, too. To learn more about making political violence backfire, see here.
Reject calls to crack down on political rights and freedoms.
Violence can be used to justify authoritarian responses that undermine our right to peaceful protest and expression of our views. Times of uncertainty can make these measures seem appealing in the name of “restoring safety and security.” Acknowledge people’s need for safety and security, but decouple that from “law and order” messaging. Provide other avenues to meet the need for safety and security, such as specific plans to ensure future demonstrations and protests remain peaceful.
DON’Ts:
Common downfalls of incident response communication
Don’t speculate: Avoid repeating unfounded or speculative claims, lest you lend them legitimacy. Stick to consistent messaging around confirmed facts and positive norms.
Don’t make violence or inflammatory narratives seem more widespread or accepted than they are: Precise language around incidents that do occur, as well as appropriate context, will help with this.
Don’t use alarmist language: Avoid language that activates fear or anxiety, such as natural disaster metaphors (e.g., “violence erupted,” or “protestors flooded the streets”).
Don’t use violent or dehumanizing language, even when referring to people who have caused harm (e.g., language that implies violence may be justified, or that likens people to disease or animals, such as a “swarm of people”).
Don’t conflate individuals with groups: Be thoughtful about attributing incidents to the responsible party. When one or a few individuals are responsible for an action, don't attribute the action to general groups, such as Republicans, Democrats, or protestors.
However, be clear in saying if and where actions are coordinated and orchestrated by extremist groups to cause violence, including when there is intersection with more mainstream actors.
Don’t use vague descriptions: Vague language leaves space for speculation, mischaracterizations, and fear-based responses, particularly if the language misconstrues violence or intimidation as more widespread or inevitable than it is. As noted above, use precise language and state clearly if/when something is still unknown.
Don’t use defeatist language: Maintain a sense of agency and resilience.
Don’t talk about violence without condemning it and highlighting responses: This can fuel perceptions that leaders accept violence, which can reinforce threat narratives.
Don’t call for peace without acknowledging legitimate concerns and underlying issues. Doing so can backfire and erode your credibility.
Don’t raise the profile and notoriety of violent actors: Use your judgment to weigh the benefit of public information against the risk of increased awareness of groups or ideologies that might otherwise stay in the margins. Ensure that you do not legitimize or inadvertently provide a platform for extremist groups by repeating their message, directly quoting members, lifting up their leaders by name, or sharing details about planned events or campaigns.