Recommendation 22

Written evidence from Birmingham City University, which analysed a large body of government’s and public health bodies’ Twitter messages relating to COVID-19, identified a wide range of language-related issues in communications. These included: messages without specific content; a lack of clarity about who messages were directed to; the use of long sentences with complex vocabulary, grammar and syntax; and issues which could raise ambiguity and confusion and can make government’s messages less likely to be understood, less likely to engage a wide audience, and more likely to elicit negative reactions and to exclude some intended recipients (for instance, through the use of the term ‘house’, which designates a specific type of abode, rather than the more general term ‘home’).48 We acknowledged that government had communicated medical and scientific information extensively, but raised concerns from our constituents that “at times this has completely drowned out” information on the social and economic impacts of the pandemic. The Cabinet Office acknowledged the need to balance public health data alongside social and economic data and considered that government’s ability to do this had improved over the course of the pandemic.49 44 Qq 16, 23 45 C&AG’s Report, para 16 46 Qq 29, 30, 69, 74; C&AG’s Report, para 17 47 Qq 29, 30, 74; Cabinet Office, COVID-19 Response – Spring 2021, 22 February 2021 48 Dr Tatiana Tkacukova, Dr Andrew Kehoe and Matt Gee (Ev ILG0010) 49 Q 19 18 Initial lessons from the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic