Public information officers (PIOs) get caught in a false binary: Say too little and you may avoid mistakes, but people will believe you’re hiding something and not being forthcoming. Say too much to prove “transparency” and you and up issuing correction after correction.

Neither option really works.

Transparency is not just about full disclosure. It’s about clarity about the boundaries of disclosure. Sometimes you can’t share a fact because it would compromise an investigation, endanger personnel, violate privacy, or risk jury contamination, but you can still be transparent by stating:

• Why you can’t share it,
• Who is responsible for determining release,
• What is being done next,
• When the next update will come.

In Massachusetts, JGPR deals with this all the time. District attorney’s investigate deaths. The State Fire Marshal investigates origin and cause of fires with municipal police and fire departments. County Sheriffs manage care and custody between arrest, arraignment and court. We don’t want to speak for those agencies that we don’t work for, but we also realize that sometimes the process goes more slowly than we — or the news media — would like.

In the Minnesota ICE shooting case, there is a significant dispute over the sequence of events and what the available video shows, alongside ongoing investigative and political action and what that means for police public perception. That combination creates the exact conditions where silence gets filled by speculation. The public information officers are caught in between competing interests. The Vice President of the United States rushed to judgement, immediately calling it justified, prompting a former ICE director to fire back, calling the rapid declarations of “justified” by DHHS “irresponsible.” Social media quickly filled with speculation and “experts” from both sides.

Transparency as de-escalation

When communities believe authorities are hiding facts, they substitute their own stories — and those stories often escalate anger and fear. In Minnesota, the aftermath has included major public tension and political conflict tied to broader immigration enforcement operations.

Here is the most important line we can tell PIOs to memorize so far in 2026: “Here’s what we can tell you now. This is what we cannot confirm or comment on yet. Here’s when we will provide our next update.”

Say it clearly. Put it in writing. Timestamp it. Number your updates.

Beware of Using “Certainty Voice” Too Early

PIOs and chiefs often feel pressure to sound definitive, but “certainty” can become “liability” when used too early. Worse yet, if you issue “confirmation” details that are later proven wrong, people won’t trust what you say going forward.

Speak with precision and give degrees of probability:

• “We can confirm at this time …” (high confidence, specific)
• “A preliminary investigation indicates …” (moderate confidence, tentative)
• “We have received reports of … but those reports are unverified/remain under investigation (low confidence, vague, can be useful to “put out the fire” but use with extreme caution!
• “We do not know … yet” (honest unknown. My favorite example: We do not know the cause of fire when the building is still burning”

Reuters and the AP have both described the Minnesota shooting as having multiple recordings and contested interpretations — a textbook scenario where “certainty voice” can backfire. These comments, when overused, erode public confidence in public information officers, and this can do immense damage — far and wide — as government agencies seek to communicate with the public. A public that does not trust PIOs is less likely to dial 911, less likely to heed shelter in place warnings, less likely to evacuate their homes when a storm is coming.

Crisis Management Demands a System of Credibility, Not Platitudes of Absolutes in the First Moments

In this era of rampant disinformation, trust isn’t built by one press release or press conference. It’s built over time by a repeatable system that shows the public:

• What do we know?
• What don’t we know?
• What are we doing to find out/bring out more details? Can we?
• When will we next update the public?
• Who is responsible for determining release of details?
• What constraints exist? (Legal, jurisdictional, medical privacy, juveniles, etc)

As PIOs we all have a solemn responsibility to be truthful — and we should beware of the trap of “full disclosure” too early. It’s not transparent; it’s foolish.