As communicators, we talk a lot about engagement.
Far less about comprehension.
In an era of reels, carousels, captions, and comment threads, information is increasingly fragmented in how it’s consumed and presented. A key point in a video, context in a caption, or caveat buried several replies deep in the comments.
Too often, the solution offered is simple: “Read the comments.”
But time and time again, audiences do not.
People act on the primary source
The video. The headline. The post that crossed their feed between meetings, school runs or late at night. When that primary content presents only part of the picture, people understandably fill in the gaps themselves.
That is when opinions harden and sides are chosen. Action follows, before understanding has had a chance to catch up.
Ironically, the comment sections intended to complete the story often reveal the opposite problem. The same questions are repeatedly asked. Suggestions are offered long after they have already been discounted. People arrive late to a conversation that has already moved on. These problems are not a failure of audiences but a signal that the information people needed was not where they were looking.
I see this pattern play out repeatedly through our social listening, where confusion is not driven by lack of interest, but by key context never being part of the primary story.
Accessible information is key
None of this is an argument against debate. Discussion, challenge and learning through the exchange of ideas are vital, particularly in complex areas like planning, sustainability and placemaking. But debate only works when people start from a shared, balanced foundation of facts.
When key context lives in the margins, we shouldn’t be surprised when understanding fractures.
Over time, this does more than confuse. It erodes trust, entrenches division and makes it harder to bring people back to a shared place of understanding once positions have been set.
As communicators, our role is not just to spark interest or provoke reaction. It is to hold the whole picture and to make that picture accessible, even when platforms reward simplicity over nuance, and when channel tactics tempt us to treat essential context as an engagement device rather than a responsibility.
Opinions will always matter. Emotion will always matter.
But without balanced, clearly presented information at the point of first contact, we leave people to navigate complexity on their own. And then we wonder why trust erodes.
Our responsibility as communicators
In a fragmented media landscape, clarity is not a nice-to-have. It is part of our responsibility.
If we want better conversations and stronger trust, we need to tell fuller, more balanced stories and make information accessible so that people can engage from a place of understanding, rather than division.
Author: Debbie Larrad