In today’s bulletin, Charlie discusses the disinformation surrounding the recent Henry Nowak case and gives in insight into what we can takeaway from the response.

Occasionally, you come across an article or a paper which blows you away, where there is that narrow balance between serious content and commentary on an incident, but it is not academic to the point of being unreadable and perhaps difficult to understand. If the commentary is on a contemporary incident, then this makes it all the more interesting. I am part of the Emergency Planning Society Communications Group and this article was shared in the group by Amanda Coleman. The article is enclosed here so you can read it yourself.

What the article showed to me is that when you get a high-profile case such as that of Henry Nowak and it concerns race and policing, it produces a toxic mix, which then leads to – at the less kinetic end – politicians both in the UK and the US exploiting the case to make their political point, and at the more kinetic end, people going out into the streets and rioting, burning cars, and throwing bricks at the police. I am not going to comment too much in this bulletin on the particulars of the Henry Nowak case because the Lynn Group has done an excellent job, but I will explore a few ideas for those of us who are not in the police and how the lessons and issues raised by it could be relevant to managing the reputation of an organisation we are responsible for.

“And so it spread on X, and Facebook, accumulating hundreds of thousands of views before institutional actors could meaningfully intervene to verify, correct, and contextualise emerging claims”. 

My learning which is relevant to us all is as follows:

1. In the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2025, the WE Forum again ranked disinformation at the top of short-term threats: ‘Misinformation and disinformation remain top short-term risks for the second consecutive year.’. Disinformation always seems someone else’s issue, e.g. a government or police issue, but what if there was disinformation gaining traction about our organisation, our product, or a member of staff? Does our organisation know how to respond to it, and have we practised doing so?
2. The catalyst for the case coming to public attention and then within hours attracting widespread social media attention and the accompanying disinformation, was when Vickrum Digwa, the attacker, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years. The body-worn camera footage turned it into a national sensation. I remember Melissa Agnes writing in her book, Crisis Ready, when social media was just beginning, talking about the three things which were likely to make a social media post go viral: an accompanying picture or video which is easily shareable, a relatable story or one that touches on people’s values, and a story which has emotional impact. The Henry Nowak case had all three. A previous story of social media causing outrage, although not the same type of violence, was in 2017 when United Airlines faced a global social media firestorm after passenger Dr David Dao was forcibly dragged from an overbooked flight, with videos filmed by fellow passengers spreading across Facebook, X, and news outlets within hours. The graphic footage sparked widespread outrage, damaged United’s reputation, and became a textbook example of how a single customer incident can go viral and escalate into a major corporate crisis. I think all organisations should be very aware of issues which could become viral storms, either anticipating them or, as they start to gain traction, being ready to deal with them.
3. In the Henry Nowak case, corrections to false facts did not go as far or become as widely shared as the false information. I do not know if this is just a fact of life that false information is much more interesting than the debunking narrative, so people are more likely to share it.
4. This case is a classic example of an incident which plays into, and can be used by, those who have existing narratives and beliefs and use this case to amplify and justify their position. Some of the narratives in the Henry case were:

a. “Two-tier policing narratives” where the police are more lenient on non-white criminals to not be accused of being racist,
b. Police corruption and cover up,
c. Migration and ‘civilisational decline’ narratives. Europe is losing its cultural identify as it is being overrun by out of control immigration (often pushed by Elon Musk and JD Vance).
d. Religious grievance narratives, “Sikhs are allowed to carry knives”.
e. Anti-woke and anti-left framing.
f. Comparing the case to the George Floyd murder and “I can breath” and ‘white lives matter’.
g. Conspiracy narratives and false flag events

What is important for us as business continuity professionals is to understand narratives about society more generally, and then within the sectors and the products and services we provide. If we understand which narratives are out there, we can better assess whether, if an incident occurs, it will impact our organisation.

5. There is a really interesting part of the report on ‘why are false narratives believable’, which I quote:

a. ‘Identity-protective cognition: People often evaluate information in ways that protect their existing values and communities’.
b. ‘Social identity and belonging: Social Identity Theory suggests individuals adopt beliefs that strengthen membership within valued groups’. Valued groups could be those online groups people belong to and follow.
c. ‘Emotional contagion and moral outrage: Anger, outrage, fear, and injustice travel quickly online. Research consistently finds emotionally arousing content spreads faster, further, and deeper than neutral information’.
d. ‘Repetition and familiarity: Repeated exposure increases perceived truthfulness.’.

Again, if we understand why these narratives are believable, we can better evaluate information and not think, ‘they couldn’t believe that’.

6. There were a number of well-known people who added to the fire and used this event for their own ends. They varied from the American Vice President and Elon Musk to Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson. These are all well-known figures with large followings, so they added fuel to the fire and amplified their views on the case to their receptive supporters. If you are an organisation with only a few, non-passionate followers and these ‘big names’ are commenting on your incident, you are going to find it nearly impossible to put forward your counter-narrative.

7. Is there a tried and tested way to deal with a disinformation story? I am not sure there is, but some of the ideas from the report are:

a. The first credible explanation carries disproportionate weight, so you need to get your explanation of what happened out early.
b. Corrections are strongest when they come from trusted voices, so have you thought about how you would defend against a disinformation campaign against your organisation, and who you would get to stand up for you and provide a counter-narrative?
c. Not every claim requires a response. By responding, you can create further interest in the event, so it may be a judgement call whether you ignore the event and it will die a natural death, or whether you have to defend yourself. This requires fine judgement.

8. If there are threats against your staff, they are named, or their address and family details are published online, do you know how you would deal with this?

The paper is all about policing after a horrendous case and the following disinformation leading to violence. If your organisation is named or involved in a disinformation case, would you know how to deal with it? Would it make a good scenario for your next crisis exercise to explore the issues associated with this?