Fighting fear with better stories. 

By Charli Edwards – Creative Director

How thinking like activists can help combat negativity and misinformation.

If you’ve ever worked on a regeneration project, infrastructure scheme, policy change or major development, you’ll know one thing to be true:

Fear is often a better communicator than facts.

Opposition groups understand this instinctively. They know how to simplify complexity, create clear narratives, mobilise emotion and give people something to rally around. Whether we agree with their position or not, they’re often brilliant communicators.

The mistake many organisations make is assuming the answer is more information. It rarely is.

When concerns emerge, the instinct is to respond with reports, FAQs, technical drawings and lengthy explanations. But opposition campaigns don’t win attention because they have the most detail. They win because they have the strongest story.

In fact, recent history is full of examples where fear proved more influential than evidence.

Take smart motorways. Despite years of data indicating that all-lane running motorways performed at a safety level comparable to conventional motorways, public concern remained high. Stories of stranded motorists and perceived danger became far more memorable than statistics, ultimately contributing to the Government scrapping plans for future schemes.

The same pattern exists in the nuclear industry. Decades of improvements in technology, safety systems and regulation have not eliminated public anxiety. For many people, the story of nuclear power is still shaped by fear of catastrophic failure rather than the evidence supporting its role in low-carbon energy generation.

We’re seeing it again with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). A recent headline warning that a proposed carbon dioxide pipeline could “engulf a town in deadly gas” generated significant attention. Whether the technical risks are ultimately judged to be high or low matters less in the first instance than the emotional imagery created by the story itself. People don’t visualise engineering reports. They visualise danger.

That’s the first lesson communicators should steal. Not the outrage. Not the division. The storytelling discipline.

The most effective activist movements understand a simple truth: people gather around feelings before they gather around facts. Fear, loss, pride, belonging and hope are often far more powerful motivators than data.

That doesn’t mean responding with counter-propaganda. It means recognising that if opposition groups are framing the debate emotionally, organisations need to become much better at communicating emotionally too.

Instead of simply rebutting concerns, we should be reframing the conversation.

• If the story is about loss, show what can be gained. 

• If the story is about exclusion, demonstrate participation. 

• If the story is about people feeling ignored, make listening visible. 

Too often, strategic communications become trapped in explanation mode. We focus on what we’re saying rather than what people are feeling. 

But storytelling is ultimately an empathy tool. 

Stories help people connect with experiences, understand different perspectives and remember information long after the facts have faded.  

The opportunity for communicators is to borrow the best tactics from activist groups and use them differently: 

• Use clarity instead of complexity. 

• Use emotion instead of jargon. 

• Use symbols, stories and shared experiences instead of endless corporate messaging. 

• Use repetition to build trust rather than fear. 

Most importantly, create opportunities for people to participate in the story rather than simply receive it.

Because opposition is rarely driven by information deficits alone. More often, it’s driven by people feeling unheard, uncertain or disconnected from decision-making.

That’s why the answer to fearmongering isn’t simply better facts.

It’s better storytelling.

Not to manipulate. To humanise and to create understanding where others are creating division. Reminding people that the most powerful communications don’t simply tell audiences what to think. They help audiences feel differently. And that’s often what changes minds.