Glocalization of institutional communication in the face of disinformation: governance and adaptation of messages in the European Parliament (2019–2024)

Abstract

Glocal disinformation represents a significant challenge for democratic institutions. By combining transnational narratives with localized reinterpretations, it increases plausibility and social resonance while undermining public trust, institutional legitimacy, and democratic deliberation. In this context, institutional communication has evolved into a core governance function rather than a purely informational activity. Public relations in the public sector must therefore address two interrelated demands: ensuring message governance through coherence, traceability, and accountability, while enabling territorial adaptation that preserves relevance and credibility among diverse publics.

The European Parliament constitutes a particularly relevant case due to its supranational mandate and multilevel communication structure. Central communication units define overarching strategic narratives, while national and regional European Parliament Liaison Offices mediate between the common European frame and local political, cultural, and media environments. Between 2019 and 2024—a period marked by electoral cycles, platform-driven polarization, and coordinated disinformation campaigns—the European Parliament intensified its communicative efforts to defend democratic participation and institutional legitimacy. This study examines how glocalization was operationalized during this period, focusing on message governance mechanisms and the adaptation of communicative devices to counter disinformation.

The research adopts a qualitative descriptive design aimed at understanding institutional communication processes from a strategic governance perspective. Data were collected through seven semi-structured interviews with senior European Parliament communication officials directly involved in the planning and execution of the 2019 and 2024 campaigns. Interviewees included the Director-General for Communication, directors of campaigns and media, and heads of audiovisual, editorial, and outreach units. The selection prioritized actors occupying key positions within central decision-making structures, providing insight into governance logics rather than local implementation practices.

All interviews were conducted individually, recorded with informed consent, and fully transcribed. Data analysis followed a thematic approach developed in three stages. First, open coding identified recurrent concepts and patterns across the interviews. Second, codes were grouped into thematic categories related to message governance, the role of Liaison Offices, audiovisual strategies, and cooperation with third parties. Third, an interpretative synthesis integrated interview findings with contextual evidence.

To support triangulation, publicly available campaign materials were also reviewed, including audiovisual content, live broadcasts, and communication toolkits distributed to external partners. These materials served to contextualize the interview data and illustrate strategic choices, rather than constituting a systematic content analysis.

The findings indicate a clear evolution between the 2019 and 2024 campaigns. Compared to 2019, the 2024 campaign demonstrated stronger message governance, notably through the adoption of a single unified slogan centered on the defense of democracy and electoral participation. Internal coordination was reinforced by clearer decision-making structures and greater integration across communication units, enabling faster and more coherent responses in a polarized and disinformation-prone environment.

European Parliament Liaison Offices played a central role as cultural mediators. While strategic framing and key messages were defined centrally, Liaison Offices adapted language, visuals, and symbolic references to national contexts, addressing linguistic sensitivities, political cultures, and media ecosystems. This ensured that the European narrative remained coherent while resonating locally.

Audiovisual communication emerged as a key strategic resource. The institution increasingly replaced generic imagery with real people, authentic testimonies, and situational narratives. Live broadcasts of debates, electoral events, and institutional milestones enhanced transparency and reinforced source credibility. The expansion to new digital platforms, including TikTok in 2024, reflected an adaptive response to changing media consumption patterns.

Cooperation with third parties followed an enabling logic. The European Parliament developed brand books, identity manuals, and communication toolkits that allowed civil society organizations, volunteers, and partner institutions to produce content within a shared communicative framework. Rather than imposing messages, the institution provided resources that facilitated decentralized yet aligned message production.

Overall, the study shows that glocalization in institutional communication is fundamentally a governance-driven process. Strong message governance ensured coherence and recognizability, while territorial adaptation enhanced legitimacy and reduced interpretative frictions that often facilitate disinformation. The case of the European Parliament illustrates how democratic institutions can strengthen communicative resilience by combining unified strategic narratives with culturally sensitive adaptation, authentic audiovisual storytelling, and cooperative engagement with trusted local actors.