When Cities Go Quiet, Someone Else Writes Their Story

Every day a municipal government stays silent, someone else tells its story.

That someone is rarely friendly. It is often a hyperlocal Facebook page chasing engagement, a partisan website dressed up as local news, or a resident with a grievance and a smartphone. None of them carry the burden of governing. None of them face the standards your communications team holds itself to. And all of them now reach audiences faster, cheaper, and more often than your municipality does.

Canadian municipal leaders need to confront a truth: the information environment your communications model was built for no longer exists. Since 2008, Canada has lost 11% of its print and online news outlets, with 83 closures in 2023 alone tied to the Metroland bankruptcy and the shutdown of Metro Media. Private broadcasting has shrunk 9% over the same period, and 2024 ranks as the worst year on record for private broadcast closures. The press release that once landed on a reporter’s desk now has no one to read it.

Relying on traditional communications models gives the advantage to critics

What fills the gap is not neutral. Statistics Canada reports that 44% of Canadians now get news from social media accounts unaffiliated with government, science, or journalism — a larger share than those turning to federal sources. An OECD survey found respondents misidentify true and false content 40% of the time, and the more they trust social platforms, the worse they perform. Meta has blocked news links in Canada. Algorithms reward heat over substance. Into the gap step engagement-driven publishers that adopt the look of local journalism while pursuing political or commercial agendas. Their economics reward the story that travels, not the story that holds up.

The asymmetry favours your critics. Publishing costs them nothing. Accuracy costs them nothing. Meanwhile your team drafts a release, routes it through legal, schedules it for Tuesday, and hopes the right reporter notices. By the time your message lands, the counter-narrative has hardened. Your Mayor and Council likely know this. For many, as elected officials, personal accountability takes place on a 24/7 basis on digital platforms.

Always-on communications is the new standard

This is why the old model of communications no longer works. The traditional municipal communications function was built for moments – the budget launch, the ribbon cutting, the press conference. Between moments, cities go dark. And in 2026, dark space gets filled by someone else.

Modern campaigns understand this. They run ‘always-on,’ producing a constant flow of content across channels they own, because audiences are siloed, skeptical, and only reached through repetition. The UK Government Communication Service codified the approach with a three-horizon model that combines immediate response with sustained narrative-building over 18 months and beyond. The CDC’s pandemic playbook proved the same point: keep communicating even when there is nothing new to announce, because when official sources go quiet, rumours rush in.

Municipalities should take the same posture. Fill the environment with your own message. Publish the project update before the complaint goes viral. Show the pothole getting fixed. Explain the budget in detail before someone misrepresents it. Residents who get a steady supply of information from the source give counter-narratives less oxygen to catch.

Rethink your communications structure

Doing this takes more than hiring another social media coordinator. It requires restructuring communications to operate as an in-house campaign team to plan in cycles, not around events. A communications function that owns its channels rather than renting attention from a shrinking media.

It also requires something harder: changing how the leadership team thinks. Communications cannot remain the department you call after a decision is made. It must sit at the table when decisions are being deliberated, because in an always-on environment, every operational choice is a communications choice. The roads crew, the planner, the bylaw officer — each part of your local government is doing things that can generate content you want the public to know about, but unless there is the communications infrastructure to convert this into material that can be shared, the positive reputational value will never be realized.

In controversies this approach pays even greater dividends. Municipalities which have adopted a campaign-style communications environment will find themselves more resilient and with reduced risk for the organization. They will be more nimble, communicate more effectively, and be more likely to preserve reputational capital in these moments of crisis.

Municipalities that take control will succeed

There are some things a municipality can do to evaluate its preparedness. Reconsider your strategy: an audit of municipal performance in the overall communications environment is the foundation of a strategic review. Assess your service level: determine how well your current resourcing and service model meet the communications needs of the municipality. Assess your media and digital communication policies: policies first written to reinforce old norms of communications, may today be handcuffs.

Municipalities did not create this environment. But they’re accountable to residents inside it. The municipalities that adapt will hold public trust through the next decade. The ones that wait for the old model to return will watch their reputations get written by people who do not have to get the facts right.

The vacuum will be filled. The only question is who fills it.