What If Your Biggest Reputation Risk Isn't True?

By Sadie Klughers | August 31, 2026

Misconceptions often spread faster than facts. Whether it’s a nonprofit, public agency, or business, someone’s hot take – however inaccurate – can quickly become the story people believe.

When this happens, it’s essential to find out how the facts got distorted – and that’s part of a communications assessment.

A misunderstanding shared online can shape community conversations, public meetings, and local news coverage. Earlier this year, the Monterey County Sheriff's Office responded to false social media reports that mischaracterized a dispatcher training exercise as a real emergency. Their quick action provided much-needed context before the misunderstanding spread further. Once inaccurate perceptions take hold, correcting them is often far more difficult than preventing them in the first place.

Acting proactively, the City of Pacifica created its "For the Record" initiative to address town gossip and get ahead of misinformation. Through a dedicated webpage that responds to emerging resident concerns, the city has made misconception management part of its ongoing communications strategy rather than waiting for controversy to arise.

Not long ago, I identified troubling public misconceptions while advising a nonprofit conservation organization. As part of that work, our team reviewed conversations across Instagram, Facebook, Yelp, and other public platforms.

While their online presence was strong, there was one issue that kept bubbling up. People believed the nonprofit was “exploiting” its conservation work to raise money. If left unaddressed, that idea had the potential to undermine trust in the organization's mission and the work it had spent years building.

The accusation wasn't true, but that didn't make it any less important.

The more we looked, the more we realized the misconception wasn't coming from one unhappy commenter. Different people were repeating the same idea across multiple platforms. At that point, it was no longer an isolated opinion. It was becoming a narrative.

Instead of asking, "How do we respond to these comments?" I asked a different question:

"Why are people reaching this conclusion?"

That one question shifted the conversation.

As the team dug deeper, we discovered this wasn't about the organization's mission. It stemmed from one specific program where the purpose and intent simply weren't being communicated clearly enough. People were filling in the gaps with their own assumptions.

Rather than responding to individual comments or issuing a broad statement, I recommended clarifying the messaging around that program on a go-forward basis. The goal wasn't to defend the organization. It was to provide the context people were missing in a way that felt authentic and aligned with the organization's voice.

This is an example of how crisis communications begins long before a crisis.

Agencies and organizations alike often think of crisis communications as responding to an emergency or issuing a press release, but it's just as much about identifying reputational risks before they escalate. A public agency that recognizes recurring misconception can address them before they become larger communications challenges.

Not every negative comment deserves a response. But when the same misconception continues to surface, it's worth asking why. Repeated patterns are often an early warning sign that your messaging needs clarification.

Understanding where misconceptions can grow, and addressing them early, can keep the wrong idea from becoming your biggest reputation risk.