Information during a crisis: checking before sharing

An alarming video, a dateless screenshot, or a message from a loved one can change our decisions during an emergency. Information is therefore part of home preparation: it helps to understand a danger, to choose a trip and to communicate with the people who matter to us.

The right reflex is to check what can be checked, to recognize what remains uncertain and to consult the competent bodies for instructions that concern your safety. It is not a question of believing each publication or of considering all sources as suspect. A simple method, prepared before the crisis, allows to keep a capacity for action.

Error, disinformation and interference: distinguishing notions

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security distinguishes misinformation, disseminated without intent to deceive, from misinformation, which is intended to mislead. Real information can also be diverted from its context to produce a misleading impression. These distinctions are used to examine content; they do not automatically reveal the intention of the author. [1].

Unverified information is not necessarily false. It may be too recent, insufficiently documented or impossible to confirm with the available evidence. Then indicate this limit rather than turning it into certainty. Similarly, a questionable publication is not sufficient to prove a foreign interference operation: this attribution requires specific elements.

Ceuta in 2026: a case to be examined with its limits

The original text was based on the events in Ceuta. The Transparency Centre of the Code of Conduct on Disinformation locates the influx of irregular crossings at the end of July 2026. It describes a cooperation mechanism established on 10 August between the European Commission, fact-checkers and platforms to discuss content that could put people at risk. [2].

The communiqué of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union on the meeting of 4 August also mentions the challenges of crisis communication and information manipulation. [3]. These documents establish the existence of institutional concerns and responses. They alone are not enough to identify the origin of each rumor, to demonstrate the causal role of a specific account, or to attribute all events to a state.

We therefore do not take as established facts the figures, the unique causes and the intentions lent to the actors without sufficiently precise reference in the old version. The useful lesson is more general: a real crisis can be accompanied by authentic images, errors, competing narratives and information whose scope remains to be established.

Evaluate actors without presuming their intentions

Who publishes, with what access to facts and according to what method? These questions are more useful than the idea that one camp would always be reliable and another always misleading. A political, economic or editorial interest deserves to be known; its presence does not demonstrate that every piece of information is false.

An institutional source can be wrong; an unknown person can report an exact fact. Credibility is also assessed over time: identifiable authors, explained method, accessible pieces and visible corrections. For an immediate safety decision, give priority to the instructions of the body that intervenes on the danger concerned.

Six mechanisms that can distort understanding

1. An incomplete selection of facts

An image can show a real event while leaving out an essential element. Look for what is missing: the complete sequence, the situation before the scene, the response of the speakers or the document from which a sentence was extracted. An extract is not an overall vision.

2. A framing presented as the only explanation

The same event can be approached from the perspective of safety, health, politics or human consequences. The choice of an angle does not automatically constitute manipulation. It becomes problematic when the interpretation is presented as a proven fact or prevents the examination of contradictory elements.

3. An impression of consensus

Seeing the same statement on multiple accounts does not necessarily correspond to multiple confirmations. All can resume a single publication. Go back to the original source and look for independent observations. A volume of shares does not establish the accuracy of a message or the existence of a coordinated network.

4. Urgency pressure

« Share before it disappears” pushes to act without checking. Ask yourself if the message conveys an applicable protection instruction or if it mainly seeks to speed up its dissemination. A spectacular rumor can wait; a relevant security alert requires an appropriate response.

5. Direct testimony taken as complete evidence

A person present on the spot describes part of the situation. His testimony can be valuable without allowing to know all the causes, all the people involved or the conditions on another street. Separate the observation from the interpretation it proposes.

6. The claim of an exclusive truth

The phrase “we alone tell the truth” does not replace any evidence. Conversely, a charge of censorship or misinformation does not automatically invalidate the targeted content. Look for the precise elements discussed and the answers to the contradictions.

Separate facts, interpretations and positions

Before you pass on information, rephrase it into three levels. This avoids attributing to a video what it does not show or confusing a preference with an instruction.

• Done to be verified : an observable event, location, schedule or published decision. Example: "The municipality announces the closure of this road at 4 p.m. »
• Interpretation : A possible explanation. Example: “This closure could extend the journey.” She sometimes asks for additional information.
• Statement of position : A judgment or proposal. Example: "The plan should have provided for another access." It can be debated without being presented as an established fact.

An information can combine these three levels. Distinguishing them does not remove the disagreement; it allows to know exactly what it is about.

Cross-checking sources without making a certainty

Look for the original publication and then independent confirmation when the nature of the information allows. Two articles citing the same press release do not represent two separate investigations. Sources who defend opposing positions can also make the same mistake.

So don’t choose one source just because it contradicts another. Compare its evidence, its proximity to facts and its method. The convergence of several observations reinforces a conclusion, but does not make it infallible. The absence of other sources may justify caution without proving that the information is false.

Questions about the source

• Who produced the initial information? Can we find its publication?
• Does the person report what he or she observed, what he or she was told, or his or her opinion?
• Are the interests, affiliations, and limitations useful to understanding explained?
• Are errors visibly corrected?

Questions about the content

• Are the date, time, location and territory specified?
• Do the numbers refer to an accessible source and a comparable period?
• Do the images really correspond to the event mentioned?
• What decision does this message change for my home? What is missing to decide?

Checking an image or video: tools and limits

A reverse image search can find a previous publication or another context. It helps to spot an old photograph presented as recent. It does not guarantee to find the original, and the lack of results does not prove that an image is authentic. The Quebec government recommends in particular to check the provenance, the date and the other sources available [4].

Tools like InVID offer the extraction of key images from a video and the examination of available technical elements [5]. These clues must be interpreted: metadata may be missing and the first publication found may be a copy. A tool cannot, on its own, establish the date of shooting, the exact location or the intention of the broadcaster.

For common use, start by opening the original post, looking for longer versions, and comparing visible items. Don’t upload family documents, children’s faces, or sensitive information to a verification service without reviewing what you share.

Before the crisis: preparing your information channels

• Register the addresses of your municipality and the competent bodies for local risks. Find their contact details from their official websites.
• In Quebec and Canada, get familiar with Quebec on alert and On alert. In France, consult the information of the device FR-Alert and your prefecture.
• Provide several means of access to information: phone charged, radio and contact information noted on paper according to your needs.
• Agree with loved ones on a contact channel and in a simple way to confirm an unusual message.
• Practice checking an image without a security issue. A known procedure will be easier to resume when you run out of time.

During the crisis: protect, confirm, transmit

Protect : If an emergency directive concerns you, take the required measures and remain attentive to updates. Don’t wait until you have resolved all the controversies about the cause of the event to leave a dangerous area or take cover.

Confirm : for a dubious message, open directly the website or the official channel of the announced organization. A screenshot can be old or modified. Check the address, schedule and perimeter. Avoid disclosing personal or banking data in response to an unconfirmed offer of help.

Transmit : share the original source, the date and the useful deposit. Distinguish what is confirmed from what remains to be checked. If you relayed an error, correct it to the same people, with the new source. Avoid republishing identifying images of victims or private contact information.

Informational autonomy supports instructions and mutual assistance

A family plan and a few resources reduce some decisions taken in a hurry. They do not make the home independent of alerts, relief and specialized knowledge. Your preparation helps you to follow instructions, explain a particular need and ask for help.

At PrépaCivile, critical thinking involves verifying an assertion to the extent of its issue, making its limits known and revising its decision when new facts come up. Widespread distrust can isolate as much as trust without scrutiny can expose. Between the two, a proportionate trust in the evidence allows for decision and cooperation.

Frequently asked questions

How to distinguish a whistleblower from a misleading source?

No profile or behavior provides a certain test. Examine documents, their provenance, story consistency, and independent verifications. A person may be pressured to report accurate facts, or mistaken without malicious intent. The label claimed does not replace the examination of the information.

Does moderation of content prove censorship or concealment?

Nope. It is necessary to examine the precise decision, the rules invoked, the actors concerned and the possibilities of appeal. The withdrawal of a publication does not demonstrate its veracity; its maintenance does not validate it either. Avoid assigning political intent without verifiable elements.

Do you have to wait 30 minutes before sharing or taking action?

There is no validated universal time limit here. Take the time before relaying unconfirmed content. For an urgent alert that concerns you, the protection of people comes first: a sharing break should not become a delay in safety.

Is a rumor enough to demonstrate foreign interference?

Nope. The origin, coordination and attribution of an operation require specific evidence. Some operations are documented, but it cannot be inferred that every mistake or controversy falls under the jurisdiction of a foreign state. Distinct the statement studied from the general context.

Sources and benchmarks

Sources consulted on November 3, 2026. Operational instructions depend on the territory and the situation. This independent resource is not a government publication.

1. Canadian Centre for Cyber Security - Identifying misinformation, misinformation and misinformation : Definitions and verification.
2. Transparency Centre - Joint statement on the events in Ceuta in 2026 : context and mechanism of cooperation; does not constitute general proof of attribution.
3. Presidency of the Council of the European Union - Meeting of the Ministers of the Interior of 4 August 2026.
4. Government of Quebec - How to spot misinformation.
5. InVID project - Functions of the verification tool : functional documentation; available platforms and versions may evolve.