Truth has become a strategic asset, just like your data, equipment, talent, etc. And like any asset, it must be protected. This statement may seem mind-boggling… out of context. But, when we look at the major trends in AI cyberattacks, the statement becomes much more obvious, even frightening, not only for organisations—both private and public—but also for society as a whole. What will happen if all our reference points are blurred or disappear? If what is white is black… or not, what is right becomes wrong… or not? Without these reference points, there is no more trust, only doubt.
The challenge that malicious actors pose to us with AI, by provoking reputational, legal, or political crises, is power and, inevitably, money. To preserve our future and that of future generations, we must act now. It is not for nothing that the French president has decided to create a Ministry of Truth.
We are all concerned with the duty to protect the integrity of our information, whether economic or political. How? See this page.
Why is there such an urgent need to address truth governance? That is what we demonstrate here… for companies, mayors, local authorities, health officials, and family office managers.
- Why truth governance has become a vital stake
- What it means in practical terms for organisations
- Concrete risks for mayors, business leaders, family office and health executives
- Difference in impact with vs. without governance
What is Truth Governance?
See our footnote.
Why Truth Governance has become a vital stake
The current crisis of truth is not accidental. It is the result of four simultaneous structural transformations that have profoundly altered how information is produced, circulated, and perceived.
- The multiplication of information channels
- The acceleration of information flows
- The industrialisation of falsehoods
- The shift of power: from authority to narrative control
Note: people detect the fakes only 60% of the time on average when they tr to distinguish between true and false content online. (source : OECD)
1. The multiplication of channels: the end of traditional gatekeepers
Today, thanks to social media, which has been legally exempt from liability for content published on its platforms since 1996 in the United States and 2000 in Europe, every organisation, every individual and every bot has become a media outlet, with its own perception of reality and its own truth. And algorithms have taken on the informal role of arbiters of ‘information’.
This proliferation of voices and this special legal status, which GAFAM and its ilk exploit shamelessly, has led to several consequences that are more or less harmful.
- Fragmentation of public space and opinion
- Suppression of traditional filters of morality, protection and moderation
- Instant dissemination of competing, contradictory or hostile narratives, either in the name of freedom of expression or to destabilise public opinion, but always without verification.
More
In this toxic environment, truth no longer emerges through authority but through visibility and repetition. What is shared most widely is not what is most accurate, but what is most emotional, divisive or mobilising.
Academic research shows that false information spreads faster, further and more deeply than verified information, precisely because it exploits these social and emotional dynamics (MIT / Science).
Direct consequence: silence, a wait-and-see attitude or informational neutrality become vulnerabilities.
Some telling figures
According to a global survey conducted by DemandSage in 2025, 86% of people exposed to online misinformation and 40% of content shared on social media could be false, and nearly 80% of adults in the United States have seen at least one piece of fake news in their lifetime.
58% of respondents to an Ipsos/UNESCO survey believe that online hate is most prevalent on Facebook, followed by TikTok, X and Instagram, showing that dominant platforms are key vectors for disinformation.
2. The acceleration of information flow has led to decisions being made before understanding
Speed, not to mention the race against time, has become a structural constraint. Leaders, elected officials, communications managers and editorial teams must:
- make their decisions faster
- communicate earlier
- react under pressure
… often with incomplete information. However, the more the flows accelerate:
- the less time you have to verify and check
- the more errors are stuck in decisions
- the more initial narratives become dominant, even if they are false.
More
International organisations now refer to ‘information pollution’ or ‘infodemic’: an overabundance of information — both true and false — that makes it almost impossible to distinguish between the two without a structured framework (WHO, UN).
Without truth governance, organisations confuse speed with clarity.
3. The industrialisation of falsehoods: truth becomes falsifiable
With Generative AI, the status of the truth has changed.
- An image is no longer a proof
- A voice is no longer an identity
- Texts is no longer guarantee of authorship
- A video is no longer a fact
Thanks to technology, the creation of credible but false content is from now on:
- swift
- cheap
- difficult to credit to someone
- almost impossible to contain a posteriori
Deepfakes, synthetic documents, fake reports and automated narratives are not produced solely for entertainment or persuasion. Malicious groups or individuals, for financial and/or political reasons, often aim to sow doubt, make every version questionable, and exhaust people’s capacity for discernment.
This is what several institutions now refer to as the crisis of informational integrity (UN, OECD, UNESCO).
In this context, not governing truth means accepting that it becomes negotiable.
4. The shift of power: from authority to narrative control
Historically, power was based on law, expertise, hierarchy and institutions. Today, influence reigns supreme, where what matters is the ability to:
- impose a narrative
- direct perception
- define what is credible or not
Knowledge becomes secondary to the storyteller, who then controls:
- legitimacy
- trust
- agenda
- collective reaction
Contemporary attacks, which target private and public organisations and leaders of all kinds, do not primarily target technical systems. Their aim is to destroy credibility and silence dissent through the manipulation of opinions and the AI models we use without necessarily having the discernment and training required to use them properly.
Truth governance is then power governance, not a moral question.
What it means in practical terms for organisations
Whether it be mayors, business leaders, heads of family offices or healthcare institutions, this situation implies an uncomfortable reality:
- The truth no longer defends itself
- Compliance no longer guarantees credibility
- Transparency without boundaries can become a weakness.
- Communication without governance is becoming a risk
Without truth governance:
- Decisions are based on unstable foundations
- Crises turn into spirals
- Trust is being permanently eroded
- The directors are liable
The concrete risks for mayors, business leaders, family office managers and healthcare institutions
Mayors
Local authorities are now on the front line of truth crises. They no longer face only false rumours or traditional opposition, but structured narrative attacks: deepfakes targeting elected officials, fake content spread on social media, algorithmic amplification of hostile narratives, coordinated campaigns to influence local opinion or block sensitive projects. Without truth governance, municipalities react on a case-by-case basis, in a hurry, often too late — allowing false or manipulated narratives to become entrenched in the public sphere and undermine local democratic legitimacy.
Business Leaders
Whether for SMEs or large organisations, there are many risks. The most common is reputational risk due to exposure to disinformation campaigns and fake but convincing content initiated by competitors, activists or even state actors, if the activity is strategic. Hackers are not to be outdone, manipulating AI models used in chatbots or dynamic pricing, for example, which are essential in sectors such as e-commerce, hospitality, transport and tourism. Not to mention the much more serious threat of AI model theft, which constitutes critical intellectual property.
Family Offices
Family offices, like large financial institutions, are increasingly relying on algorithmic models and AI systems to analyse markets, guide investments and manage risk. These models, whether internal or provided by third parties, can be manipulated: data poisoning, bias introduced into information flows, misuse of generative models or attacks on the supply chain. The risk is not only financial. It is reputational and strategic: an erroneous decision produced by a model perceived as ‘objective’ permanently undermines trust and asset governance. Without truth governance, AI becomes a vehicle for the silent manipulation of the most sensitive decisions.
Healthcare Institutions
Healthcare institutions are exposed to crises of truth with potentially life-threatening consequences. In an environment where the credibility of clinical data, medical recommendations and care protocols directly influences the behaviour of patients and professionals, misinformation, manipulated content and unregulated use of AI can lead to dangerous decisions, delays in care and even missed opportunities. Institutions now face new risks: manipulation or alteration of medical data, recommendations generated or amplified by poorly governed AI systems, medical deepfakes, fake expert opinions, and disinformation campaigns targeting treatments, vaccines, or hospital institutions. The pandemic has revealed how the lack of governance of truth weakens healthcare action, disrupts decision-making chains, erodes patient confidence and exposes institutions to lasting systemic, legal and reputational crises.
In Conclusion
The question is no longer whether truth is under attack. It already is. The only question now is who governs it, by what rules, and in whose interests?
Difference in impact with vs. without governance
In brief.
| Without dedicated structure | With a clear governance |
|---|---|
| Decisions are based on incomplete or biased evidence | Truth becomes measurable, traceable and defensible |
| Reactive communication replaces proactive strategy | Narrative attacks are anticipated, not endured. |
| Crises turn into spirals out of control | Organisational resilience increases |
| Internal and external confidence is collapsing. | Global governance becomes robust in the face of crises |
What Truth Governance is
It is not limited to fact-checking or crisis communication.
Truth governance is a framework of rules, responsibilities and processes designed to define, validate, document and protect the integrity of information within an organisation, in order to ensure that decisions, communications and actions are based on verifiable, traceable and defensible facts.
Definition inspired by official sources* on information integration.
Its role and objectives
- Define what it considers to be reliable and verifiable information.
- Document, track and validate your own data and assertions.
- Respond consistently to narrative attacks, fake news and manipulation.
- Ensure transparency, accountability and consistency in internal and external communications.
* Official sources used:
- UNDP – Information Integrity – «Promoting reliable, resilient and trustworthy information is essential for social cohesion and institutional trust.» (UNDP)
- OCDE – Fighting Disinformation – The need to strengthen information integrity as an element of democratic and economic governance.
Today, managing the truth is no longer a luxury reserved for a few communication or ethics specialists. It is an operational necessity for securing decision-making, protecting reputation and ensuring the sustainability of your organisation.
More info and resources
