Communication Reforms: In a Polarized World, Should the UN Take Sides?
October 2026
By Katja Hemmerich
Assessing the results of UN communication reforms
In recent weeks, I’ve participated in a growing number of discussions that are questioning how the UN, and the next Secretary-General, should communicate. Carolyn Rodrigues Birkett, one of the candidates for Secretary-General has emphasized the SG’s role as the organization’s chief spokesperson, who needs to communicate clearly about the UN’s achievements, challenges and modernization efforts that make it fit for purpose in order to build trust and mobilize support and resources. Thant Myint-U and Mark Malloch Brown have indicated that less communication by the SG might actually be more effective, because it helps to keep some mystery of the office and increases the impact of communications when they are issued. UN80’s work package 21 highlights the importance communicating the UN’s results in the SG’s Information Brief issued in September 2026.
But what communication techniques actually work in a world that is increasingly polarized and where the UN, multilateralism and international assistance have become highly politicized? For the UN’s Department of Global Communications the answer was to take on a greater advocacy role, particularly on social media, as part of the reforms undertaken when Antonio Guterres took office. When the Department of Global Communications (DGC) replaced the Department of Public Information (DPI) in 2019, its mandate included leveraging social media as a key tool for “cause communications” whereby the aim is “not just to inform, but also to inspire people to care and to mobilize them for action” (See DGC’s proposed programme in A/76/6, Part VII, Section 28). Our spotlight this month explores the research assessing how well this reform has worked and emerging research on how public opinion on international cooperation can be influenced and changed.
Social Media’s Communication Dilemma for the UN
The shift towards ‘cause communications’ may seem minor but it is actually a significant departure from the traditional public information role of DPI. From its inception, public information was seen as a key function of the UN Secretariat with the Office of Public Information as one of the original departments. But while it was mandated to provide public information on the work of the of the organization and promote the values of the Charter, it was also expressly forbidden from engaging in ‘propaganda’. There is an inherent tension in promoting the values of the UN Charter, but not taking on an advocacy role that could be perceived as propagandizing. While the UN has generally managed to toe this line, the advent of social media and its instantaneous and continuous information flows have aggravated this tension.
“Social media pose new challenges for IO [international organization] communication such as a highly competitive economy of attention and the fragmentation of the audiences driven by networked curation of content and selective exposure. In this context, communication departments have to make tough choices about what to communicate and how, aggravating inherent tensions between IO [international organization] communication as comprehensive public information (aimed at institutional transparency)—and partisan political advocacy (aimed at normative change).” - M. Ecker-Ehrhardt, 'Building bridges or digging the trench? International organizations, social media, and polarized fragmentation', 2025
The DGC reforms appear to have made the tough choice in favor of greater political advocacy to mobilize public support not just for the values of the UN Charter but also emerging international policies and norms, to demonstrate the value of the UN as a venue for collective problems solving and international agreements. One key example of this was its support on social media of the the negotiation and adoption of the Global Compact for Migration, which has been analyzed by Dr. Mathias Ecker-Ehrhardt of Goethe University in Germany.
Attention vs. Attitudinal Change
Dr. Ecker-Ehrhardt specifically focused on Twitter/X communications in relation to migration because both the issue and the platform demonstrate high levels of polarization. The study provides useful insights into the extent to which the UN was able to bring attention to the issue of orderly migration norms and whether it was able to penetrate different sides of the debate and build support potential change attitudes and opinions on the Global Compact for Migration.
DGC’s advocacy strategy on Twitter/X was operationalized in several ways. DGC published 270 tweets directly related to the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) between Oct. 2017, early in the negotiation process, and December 2018, when the UN General Assembly formally endorsed the Compact. 94.8% of those tweets contained content with an explicitly positive framing of order migration, migrants, multilateralism and the UN, for instance by stating that migration is an essential ‘part of our humanity’ and that migration has benefits for host and home countries alike. In addition to the positive framing, DGC’s tweets also reshared other migration content from UN accounts (more than half of which were also run by DGC) and added specific mentions in their tweets of other UN accounts focused on migration, often also run by DGC, as well as those run by IOM and UNHCR. Finally, early on UN accounts run by DGC and others shifted from neutral hashtags like #migration or #GCM to prioritize the hashtag #ForMigration. #ForMigration presents migration as something good and worthy, making the UN’s advocative position obvious, unlike #migration which is essentially just a topic marker.
The impact of this strategy is evident in the scatter plot below. DGC’s @UN Twitter handle and that of key UN leaders are very much driving key content and authoritative voices in Twitter discussions in favor of migration (in blue on the right). Those in support of migration and the Global Compact shared content from or mentioned UN content or accounts over 80% of the time. #ForMigration is the most frequently used hashtag in all the migration debates in Twitter, yet it appears almost exclusively (97.7% of the time) in retweets and shares by those in favor of migration, in blue. It appears that #ForMigration was in fact a signal for those critical of migration of the type of content and accounts to avoid, as highlighted by Dr. Ecker-Ehrhardt:
“DGC succeeded in making its hashtag a main device for signaling a positive
stance and an act of advocacy. At the same time, it made it fairly easy for other users to curate respective content along partisan lines, including efficiently avoiding UN communication entirely.” - M. Ecker-Ehrhardt, 'Building bridges or digging the trench? International organizations, social media, and polarized fragmentation', 2025
DGC’s communications did have an immense resonance on X/Twitter, and it was clearly recognized as a thought leader on the issue - but only with those already positively pre-disposed to support migration. The scatter plot also illustrates the depth of the echo chamber of those for and against migration on Twitter/X. DGC’s communications did not penetrate the anti-migration echo chamber, much less change the minds of those skeptical of the Global Compact for Migration. In fact, the UN’s success as a thought leader on the pro-migration side of the debate appears to have made it even more of a target for those critical of migration, with researchers finding a significant number of tweets that frame the GCM as an attempt by the UN to illegitimately force states to open borders for migrants. The advocacy strategy clearly had limitations and also created legitimacy risks for the organization on such a hotly politicized issue.
Can Opinions Really Be Changed?
In the highly polarized world that we seem to be living in, it is easy to assume that positions are deeply entrenched, and that trying to change them is futile. Consequently, even just building up the UN’s authority and voice amongst like-minded viewers should be a positive result.
But there is a growing body of research that demonstrates conservative or right wing opinions can be changed, and international organizations and aid agencies can and should aim to do that. Specifically, several academic and thinktank studies focused on public opinion on foreign assistance in key donor countries (the US, UK and Germany) have shown that public information strategies, rather than advocacy, can build support for more international assistance, including amongst the most skeptical and distrusting of public institutions.
In a series of survey experiments in the UK, researchers assessed how public reactions changed when they were provided with different kinds of information about international assistance programming by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Cooperation Office (FCDO) and found that:
"Across the experiments, we find strong evidence that transparency increases support for the aid agency. In the monadic experiment, we find that simply providing more details on the FCDO's transparency efforts increases support for aid through the agency by close to 12%. This is a sizable swing for a minor alteration in the information presented to respondents. Moreover, we find that treatment effects are largely driven by those who least support foreign aid and trust the civil service the least. That is, transparency works best when citizens are the most skeptical about aid and the civil service….Transparency reforms boost aid support even more than a stronger emphasis on aid being in the national interest and are on par with stronger aid conditionality on human rights." - M. Heinzel, B. Reinsberg & H. Swedlund, "Transparency and Citizen Support for Public Agencies: The Case of Foreign Aid", 2024
A 2026 survey by the Rockefeller Foundation finds similar results amongst the US public following the destruction of USAID. Not only did the survey find that 54% of those surveyed are favorable towards foreign aid, that number went up as more detail on the types of programmes was provided, i.e. whether it was provided as humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping or health interventions, and even more so when information was provided on accountability and transparency measures. As in the UK, even the MAGA participants in the survey, who started the survey opposed to foreign aid (-17 points) indicated that, after being provided more information, preferred reforming aid programmes over cutting them (by a 68 point margin).
"When asked what would change their mind, Americans who answered “unfavorable” or “unsure” toward foreign aid at the end of the survey said they would be more likely to support it if they saw greater accountability measures in place. Those include independent audits of programs (49%), evidence of impact on threats to the U.S. (47%), and clear end dates for programs (41%)—just 16% said none of the proposed ideas would change their mind. This is reflective of the strong support for rebuilding foreign aid with greater safeguards in place. It also outlines things the foreign aid industry already did, but where there is an opportunity to highlight these existing measures more in the future—such as receiving U.S. foreign aid grants meant publishing evidence, undergoing independent audits, and establishing program close-out procedures." - The Rockefeller Foundation, "An American Perspective on Foreign Aid", June 2026
Another interesting point highlighted by many of these studies is that inundating audiences with performance data - even if it demonstrates strong achievement of results does not do much to change public perceptions.
Maybe the Department of Public Information was Fit for the 21st Century
While much of the current UN reform discussions have rightly pointed out that the UN was built for a world that no longer exists, it does seem that the architects emphasis on public information over advocacy in UN communications remains fit for purpose even in a digital world. And, sometimes less really is more. UN leaders, the next SG and UN communications departments may be more effectively judged not by the number of views, shares or comments, but by their ability to build bridges across polarized audiences. Building support for multilateralism and the work of the UN may be more effective when it focuses on sharing information about what the UN is actually doing, how it ensures that its resources are being used as intended and providing value to citizens across its member states. This isn’t to say that advocacy is entirely misplaced, but it may bring greater returns and fewer risks when it is focused on the values of the UN Charter, rather than on emerging policy areas - a point also highlighted by one of the guests in our first podcast series “Test the Evidence” coming out in November 2026.
