The fragmentation of modern media provides access to a limitless supply of analysis, interpretations, and opinions. But rather than bringing clarity, this cacophony of commentary more often results in confusion.

Into this mix, powerful centralised institutions mobilise significant resources to drive narratives. Over the past few generations, fearless investigative efforts have identified examples of deficient and deceptive institutions. This has resulted in such centralised messaging being treated with caution, if not explicit, cynicism.

But does that mean we should be sceptical of all messaging emanating from centralised bodies? What are the implications for society if there is widespread distrust of such communication?

The result is that there are different prisms through which to view events. The human misery caused by the Ukraine and Russia conflict is heartbreaking, but does that mean there are clear paths of action we can support? The forecasts of climate change impacts are worryingly bleak, but is there reasonable uncertainty, and what are the full implications of promoted mitigations?

The only thing we can do is to remain engaged, and, as Marty Bent states, “bring back civility to these types of conversations.”