Strategic Communication in the Age of Provocation

The Nature of Provocation

The headlines said that Trump had announced on his social network that he planned to change the name of Lake Ontario to "Lake America". Do you remember the Gulf of Mexico, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of America? Well, the same, now with Canada. At first, it sounded like another occurrence to provoke, generate headlines and keep everyone talking about him. Shortly after, he signed the order for the US government to The US will officially use that name, although that does not oblige Canada or change how the rest of the world will call it.

The reaction was as expected. Media, politicians, analysts and users launched themselves to discuss whether they could do it, with what authority and how far the provocation went. Mockery, memes and indignation appeared. For hours, thousands of people circulated something they probably considered ridiculous.

For me, the truth is that I was not as interested in the name change as in the ease with which a provocation takes over the conversation. Someone posts something disproportionate and, almost without thinking about it, we all run to respond. We want to correct it, show that it is wrong, make it clear that we do not agree. We feel it's the right thing to do. The problem is that each response also keeps the message alive.

The Automatic Response

In communication, there was a deep-rooted idea: if someone said something false and no one contradicted it, the lie won. There are still cases where that is true, especially when a statement can cause damage or influence important decisions. But we have turned that idea into an automatic reflex. We feel that everything deserves an answer and that silence is equivalent to accepting what the other said.

The networks changed that logic. Before, responding to a rumor helped stop it within a limited space. Now, an answer can take you much further. When we share something to criticize it, we capture to mock or mention who published it, we are also distributing it. The intention can be good; the result, not always.

The algorithm only records movement. A post with comments, reactions and responses seems relevant, even if most say it is absurd. Indignation and mockery also generate scope. In fact, many provocations are published only because it is known that adversaries will help move them. We fall into the game more often than we think.

The Urgency to Respond

Indignation works well because it takes away our time to think before reacting. If something touches what we consider unfair, offensive or dangerous, we feel the urgency to respond now. We want to defend our values, correct deception, show that we are not indifferent. It's understandable, but it can also be just what the person who posted the message was looking for.

Provoking outrage is very useful for a public figure. He gives him space in the media, moves other topics, keeps his followers mobilized and forces his adversaries to respond to him. If you are also going through an uncomfortable moment, a new controversy can bring out of the conversation what you would prefer us to stop looking at. While everyone discusses the last occurrence, other topics are left in the background without much effort.

Ego and Attention

There is also the ego, although it is difficult to measure how much it weighs. There are characters for whom being criticized is much more tolerable than being ignored. That thousands talk about them, even if it is to insult them, confirms that they can still move the conversation with a single sentence. Every headline, every answer, every reaction video is one more proof of their ability to attract attention.

We cannot know from the outside how much strategy there is and how much need for prominence. They probably mix. What we can observe is the result: someone publishes something provocative and gets adversaries, followers and media to organize the conversation around them. Even those who try to downplay it end up putting it back in the center.

Whoever dominates this dynamic does not need to convince everyone. It's enough that no one talks about anything else. His followers will share the message because they agree, and his critics will do it to prove that it is false or ridiculous. While both argue, the one who started the scandal retains control of the issue and the attention he was looking for.

This is connected to the confirmation bias, which we have already talked about before. We tend to accept more easily what coincides with what we already believed. If someone supports the one who launched the provocation, he will interpret the criticism as another attack by his opponents. If he is against it, he will find new reasons to be indignant. Discussion rarely changes anyone's position. What he achieves is that the statement is repeated over and over again.

The Effect of Repetition

And repetition matters. Psychology has studied the effect of the illusory truth: a statement begins to seem more credible to us simply because it is familiar to us. It doesn't mean that every repeated lie ends up convincing someone, but it does imply that familiarity influences how we process information.

That's why some denials fail. We repeat the falsehood in the headline, mention it several times when explaining it and leave the clarification for the end. Days later, many people remember the original statement, but they are no longer so clear if they heard it because it was true or because someone was correcting it.

That's why silence can also be a communication tool, although saying it is uncomfortable. We are used to seeing it as a lack of character or fear of facing the problem. But it can also be a decision, made after evaluating the scope of a publication, the possible harm and the likely effect of responding.

I'm not talking about shutting up about anything. If false information circulates about an emergency, an illness, a public decision or a serious accusation, action must be taken quickly. Nor should an institution hide behind silence when it has a clear responsibility or when the people affected need an explanation. There, silence increases uncertainty and destroys trust.

The Strategy of Silence

There are other situations that are much less clear. An account with few followers publishes an accusation without evidence. Almost no one saw it, but an organization gets scared and launches a statement. The media find out about the matter thanks to that response and turn it into news. In the end, the institution that wanted to protect itself ended up giving national reach to a marginal comment.

Something similar happens when a familiar character launches a calculated provocation. The first reaction is usually to respond quickly, although we still do not know if the matter has real consequences or if in two hours it has already been replaced by another occurrence. That rush can turn a passing nonsense into a crisis that we manufacture together.

Something similar happens in personal communication. Someone makes a passive-aggressive comment or an ambiguous accusation expecting us to react. If we fall into the trap, we end up explaining ourselves in front of someone who perhaps never wanted to listen to. Sometimes the discussion exists only because we decide to get into it.

Before answering, you should stop and see what is really happening. How many people really saw the message? Who's moving it? Is there an audience still looking for information? And if we have something useful to add, or if we are just going to repeat the provocation with other words.

That pause avoids several problems. Not every negative comment is a crisis. Not every accusation needs a statement, and not every post by a politician deserves to be the topic of the day. Sometimes it is enough to monitor and be prepared in case the conversation grows. If it loses strength on its own, responding would have been to put gas on it.

Strategic Correction

When it's time to correct, the form matters. You can start with the verified fact and mention the falsehood of passage, without putting it back in the center. In the case of Lake Ontario, for example, it is more useful to explain that it is still a lake shared by the United States and Canada, and that the order only changes the name used by US institutions. That explanation informs without turning the provocation into a spectacle.

You can also answer once and stop there. A well-done clarification does not force you to enter into twenty discussions later or to respond to each comment. There are conversations that do not seek information, but wear and tear, and continuing to respond does not make them more reasonable.

Strategic silence requires discretion, because it can be confused with indifference. It should not be decided for comfort or used to evade responsibilities. We must observe the context, measure the risks and be clear about who we need to report. If there is a specific damage, it is answered. If the information is confusing people who need to make decisions, it is clarified. If what we have in front of us is a provocation that lives from the reaction of others, perhaps the best thing is to leave it without food.

The latter is especially difficult in an environment that pushes us to have an opinion immediately. The networks make us feel that, if we don't react now, we will be late. But in strategic communication, speed is not always the main virtue. A hasty response can be much more expensive than a few minutes of silence.

The Need for Critical Thinking

Lately there is a lot of talk about critical thinking as a defense against disinformation. It is necessary, but not always enough. We can analyze a statement, recognize that it is false and still help spread it because we feel the need to prove that we did not fall for deception. We thought with a cool head, but we reacted exactly as the provocateur expected.

Maybe that's why we also need to learn how to manage our attention. Choose what deserves an answer and what can stay talking alone. There are arguments that must be faced, and others that only grow when someone decides to take them seriously.

At a time when anyone can impose a topic with an absurd post, keeping quiet can be a way to refuse to follow the game. It won't always be the right decision, but it should be among the options. Because communicating well also implies knowing when our words clarify something and when they only produce more noise.

Sometimes, the best answer is a firm and well-documented explanation. Other times, it is enough to observe, wait and let the provocation turn off by itself. The criterion is to know how to recognize the difference.

Fuentes consultadas

Associated Press. “Trump signs order renaming Lake Ontario as 'Lake America' in the United States”. 08/27/2026.

Ye, S. & others. “Systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for an illusory truth effect”. Nature Communications, 2026.

McLoughlin, K. L. y otros. “Disinformation exploits indignation to spread online”. Science, 2024.