Trust Isn’t Built Once: The Case for Repetition and Transparency in Public Messaging

In an age of endless information, the biggest challenge isn’t what governments say- it’s whether people hear it, trust it, and remember it. Building civic trust doesn’t come from a single memo or press release; it comes from transparent, repeated, and human-centered communication. From city halls to emergency command centers, leaders are learning that clear and consistent messaging isn’t just a communications tactic- it’s an act of public service. The path to trust starts not with perfection, but with openness, empathy, and repetition that meets people where they are.

One of the most important lessons in public communication is that transparency and repetition are not optional - they are the cornerstone of effective messaging. In local government, we often assume that once a message has been shared, it has been received and understood. That is rarely the case. Repetition, across multiple platforms and delivered in varied formats, ensures that vital information reaches residents with different media habits and literacy levels. According to the Center for Media Engagement, consistent messaging across trusted channels significantly improves public understanding and recall of civic information, particularly in diverse communities (Stroud et al. 2020)¹.

Transparency strengthens trust, especially when paired with proactive communication. Sharing what is known, what is uncertain, and what steps are underway conveys respect for the public’s intelligence. During a budget shortfall or infrastructure delay, being upfront about challenges and constraints sets a tone of honesty. When leaders model transparency in their messaging, it signals institutional accountability. This was evident in the City of Seattle’s COVID-19 response, where regular briefings and accessible dashboards fostered higher levels of community compliance and trust (City of Seattle 2021)².

Tailoring Messages to Reflect Community Realities

Effective messaging is not one-size-fits-all. Too often, government communications fail because they are crafted from an internal perspective rather than shaped by the lived experiences of the people they are meant to serve. Understanding the cultural, economic, and linguistic context of a community is essential. This requires more than translation - it demands cultural adaptation. For example, during emergency weather events, messaging tailored for seniors, renters, and non-English speakers must go beyond direct translation and include contextually relevant guidance that resonates with daily routines and concerns.

Engaging community-based organizations and local media outlets as partners in communication planning can enhance message relevance and reach. These groups often have deeper ties and trust within specific populations and can serve as conduits for distributing accurate information. A study by the National Civic League found that municipalities that co-designed messages with community partners saw a 30 percent increase in engagement on critical topics like public safety and health (National Civic League 2021)³. Incorporating feedback loops through surveys, listening sessions, and social media monitoring helps adjust messaging in real time and demonstrates responsiveness.

Choosing the Right Messengers and Channels

Who delivers a message can be just as important as the message itself. Trust is often person-centered, and in local contexts, residents may respond more readily to a school principal, neighborhood leader, or faith-based organizer than to a city official. Identifying and equipping these trusted messengers with accurate information enhances message credibility and reach. This approach was used effectively in Minneapolis during its community safety outreach, where information shared through neighborhood associations outperformed official city channels in engagement and trust metrics (City of Minneapolis 2022)⁴.

Equally important is the selection of communication channels. While traditional media like local newspapers and radio remain vital for many, digital platforms now play a dominant role, particularly for younger residents. Governments must maintain a presence on social media, but not at the expense of accessibility. Not all residents are online, and over-reliance on digital tools can inadvertently exclude those without internet access. A strategic mix of print flyers, in-person outreach, SMS alerts, websites, and social media helps ensure broad coverage. Channel diversity is not just practical - it is equitable.

Clarity Over Complexity in Crisis Messaging

In times of crisis, clarity is paramount. Emergency messaging must be specific, plainspoken, and actionable. Avoiding jargon or bureaucratic language is not a matter of style, but of safety. For instance, during hazardous air quality events, messages should explain what “unhealthy air” means in practical terms: stay indoors, close windows, and use air purifiers if available. Studies from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health show that communities respond more effectively when messages include concrete instructions and timelines rather than vague advisories (Harvard T.H. Chan 2019)⁵.

Timeliness is also critical. Delayed communication creates a vacuum that can be filled by speculation or misinformation. Local governments should have pre-established messaging templates for common emergencies, allowing communications staff to act swiftly and consistently. Investing in communication preparedness - including training, scenario planning, and message mapping - positions agencies to respond with confidence when the stakes are highest. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recommends the use of Joint Information Centers (JICs) to streamline messaging and coordination during emergencies, enhancing both speed and consistency (FEMA 2020)⁶.

Measuring Impact and Learning from Feedback

Messaging must be evaluated to improve. Without feedback mechanisms, it is impossible to know whether a communication strategy has succeeded. Metrics such as open rates, click-throughs, attendance numbers, or social media shares provide useful data, but they do not capture public comprehension or trust. Qualitative tools like community surveys, listening sessions, and focus groups offer deeper insights into how messages are received and interpreted. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) recommends integrating both quantitative and qualitative feedback into ongoing communication assessments (ICMA 2021)⁷.

Learning from communication missteps is equally important. When messaging fails to land - whether due to timing, tone, or content - acknowledging the misjudgment and adjusting accordingly can rebuild trust. This requires a culture within government that treats communication as a strategic function, not a reactive task. Embedding communications professionals in operational planning processes ensures alignment between messaging and service delivery. It also fosters agility, allowing teams to pivot when public sentiment or conditions change.

Conclusion: Messaging as a Public Service

At its best, media and messaging in local government function not as tools of promotion, but as acts of public service. When approached with integrity, clarity, and responsiveness, communication builds civic trust and invites collective problem-solving. It is not simply about managing information - it is about demonstrating that the voices and concerns of residents are heard and respected. In this way, messaging becomes a vehicle not only for informing, but also for fostering a stronger, more inclusive civic fabric.

Practitioners must continue to refine their communication strategies by listening as much as they speak, co-creating messages with trusted partners, and grounding their work in the realities of the communities they serve. The goal is not perfection, but connection - and through connection, progress.

Bibliography

1. Stroud, Natalie Jomini, Caroline Murray, Ashley Muddiman, and Cynthia Peacock. 2020. "Local News and the Crisis in Civic Information." Center for Media Engagement. https://mediaengagement.org

2. City of Seattle. 2021. "COVID-19 Response After Action Report." Office of Emergency Management. https://www.seattle.gov/emergency-management

3. National Civic League. 2021. "Equity and Engagement in Local Government." https://www.nationalcivicleague.org

4. City of Minneapolis. 2022. "Community Safety Engagement Report." Office of Violence Prevention. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/community-safety

5. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. 2019. "Crisis Communications in Public Health." https://www.hsph.harvard.edu

6. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. "Joint Information System and Joint Information Center Planning." https://www.fema.gov

7. International City/County Management Association (ICMA). 2021. "Effective Government Communications: A Guide for Local Leaders." https://icma.org