Governments have become remarkably efficient at producing information. During crises, official statements, emergency regulations and public updates appear almost instantly. Yet recent global emergencies have exposed a fundamental paradox: more information does not necessarily create greater public trust.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated this with exceptional clarity. Around the world, governments introduced unprecedented public-health measures, revised policies at remarkable speed and communicated with citizens almost continuously. Despite these efforts, public responses varied dramatically. Accurate information competed with rumours, institutional confidence fluctuated and misinformation often spread faster than official corrections.
The challenge extended well beyond the pandemic. Whether societies face natural disasters, armed conflicts, cyberattacks or public-health emergencies, governments confront the same question: how can accurate information become trusted information?
Most discussions of crisis communication focus on governments and public institutions. Established frameworks such as the CDC’s Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model and Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) have shaped modern practice by emphasising transparency, consistency and timely communication.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
These principles remain indispensable.
Yet they share an important assumption-that once reliable information is produced, effective communication naturally follows.
Recent experience suggests otherwise.
Between governments and citizens lies an often-overlooked stage of communication. Official information rarely reaches the public directly. Instead, journalists, editors, producers and broadcasters interpret complex events, provide context and translate institutional language into messages ordinary audiences can understand.
This intermediary role becomes especially important during uncertainty.
People rarely judge information on facts alone. They also respond to clarity, consistency and the credibility of those delivering the message. Two governments may release nearly identical information yet receive very different public reactions because the communication itself inspires different levels of confidence.
Television illustrated this particularly well during the COVID-19 pandemic. While social media accelerated both verified information and misinformation, television remained one of the most trusted sources of crisis reporting because journalists explained changing regulations, interpreted complex developments and provided continuity during uncertain periods.
In such moments, credibility becomes inseparable from presentation.
This raises a broader question. If governments are responsible for making decisions, who ensures those decisions are understood?
Despite its practical importance, that question has received surprisingly little attention.
One researcher exploring this overlooked dimension of crisis communication is Kazakh journalist Kydyr-Zhan Mukhatayev. His work examines what happens after official information reaches television audiences.
Using Kazakhstan’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study, Mukhatayev argues that broadcasters should not be viewed as passive channels transmitting government messages. Through editorial judgement, presentation and audience engagement, they actively influence how information is interpreted, trusted and ultimately acted upon.
When Information Isn’t Enough
One of the most persistent assumptions in crisis communication is that accurate information naturally leads to public understanding. In reality, the relationship is far more complex.
Citizens rarely interpret official messages in isolation. They assess institutional credibility, the clarity of explanations and the consistency of communication over time. Trust therefore develops not through information alone but through the interaction between governments, professional media and public perception.
This helps explain why countries facing similar crises often achieve different public outcomes. During uncertainty, people seek more than facts. They look for reassurance, competence and evidence that those responsible understand the situation themselves.
Professional journalism therefore becomes central to crisis communication.
Broadcasters do far more than repeat official announcements. Through editorial choices, language and presentation, they transform complex information into something audiences can understand and trust.
The pandemic made this responsibility especially visible. As governments adapted policies almost daily, broadcasters helped distinguish verified information from speculation and placed individual developments within a broader context.
Rather than treating broadcasting as a technical process of information delivery, Mukhatayev presents it as a dynamic relationship between institutions, journalism and public trust.
A Case Study with Broader Implications
Mukhatayev explores this relationship through two complementary studies based on Kazakhstan’s broadcasting experience during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The first examines the professional role of television journalists during prolonged uncertainty. Rather than focusing exclusively on government communication, it considers how broadcasters themselves contributed to public understanding through responsible reporting, editorial judgement and effective communication.
The second expands the discussion beyond the pandemic, presenting crisis broadcasting as an interconnected system in which institutional credibility, journalism, visual communication and audience psychology continuously influence one another.
Although grounded in Kazakhstan’s experience, the questions raised extend far beyond one country. They suggest that successful crisis communication depends not only on what governments say but also on how professional media transform official information into messages citizens are prepared to understand, trust and follow.
How Trust Is Actually Built
If trust is not created by official statements alone, what determines whether crisis communication succeeds?
Kazakhstan’s experience suggests that public confidence is shaped not by a single government message but by the interaction of several interconnected factors.
The first is institutional credibility. Citizens are far more likely to follow official guidance when public institutions are perceived as competent, transparent and consistent. Even accurate information quickly loses its impact if communication appears contradictory or uncertain.
The second is professional journalism. During a crisis, broadcasters become interpreters rather than mere messengers. Through editorial decisions, language and context, they help audiences understand not only what is happening but also why it matters.
The third factor is visual communication. Television communicates through images as much as words. Live reporting, graphics and interviews shape public perception and emotional responses long before audiences consciously evaluate facts.
Finally, there is public perception. People’s reactions are influenced by previous experience, culture, emotions and existing levels of institutional trust. Crisis communication therefore becomes an ongoing interaction between governments, media and society rather than a simple transfer of information.
Together, these factors suggest that public trust is rarely created by institutions acting alone. It emerges through the combined influence of credible governance, responsible journalism and informed public engagement.
Mukhatayev’s research brings these elements together into a single analytical perspective. Rather than viewing broadcasting as a channel for delivering official information, it presents television journalism as an active component of crisis management capable of strengthening-or undermining-public confidence.
Beyond COVID-19
Although these observations are drawn from Kazakhstan’s experience during the COVID-19 pandemic, the issues they highlight extend far beyond public health.
Future crises may involve cyberattacks, geopolitical instability, climate-related disasters or AI-driven misinformation. While each presents different challenges, all require governments to maintain public trust under conditions of uncertainty.
The information environment has also changed dramatically. Television now operates alongside social media, digital news platforms, messaging applications and AI-generated content. Information spreads faster than ever-but so does misinformation.
This makes professional journalism more important, not less.
In an environment where virtually anyone can publish information instantly, audiences continue searching for reliable sources capable of explaining complex events with accuracy, responsibility and context. The principles of credible journalism-verification, editorial independence and clear communication-remain essential regardless of the platform.
For this reason, Kazakhstan’s experience deserves attention beyond its national context. Although every country has its own political and media landscape, the relationship between governments, journalism and public trust has become a shared international challenge.
The Next Crisis Will Test More Than Governments
Every crisis eventually ends.
The real question is what remains once it does.
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that governments cannot manage crises through policy alone. Success depends equally on whether citizens understand those policies, trust those communicating them and believe the information they receive.
Mukhatayev’s work contributes to this discussion by shifting attention toward a stage of crisis communication that has often been overlooked. Rather than asking only how governments should communicate, it examines what happens after official information enters the public sphere-and how journalism influences whether that information ultimately earns public confidence.
As artificial intelligence reshapes the global information landscape and misinformation becomes increasingly sophisticated, this perspective is likely to become even more relevant. The future of crisis communication will depend not only on producing accurate information but also on ensuring that trustworthy information remains understandable, credible and persuasive.
Kazakhstan’s experience therefore offers more than a national case study. It illustrates a challenge that governments, journalists and policymakers around the world are likely to face repeatedly in the years ahead.
Governments can always produce more information.
Whether societies choose to trust it is another matter.
In the end, people do not simply need information. They need information they are willing to believe.