Communicating in Risk, Crisis, and High Stress Situations: Evidence-Based Strategies and Practice - Vincent T. Covello

Скачать книгу

the need for people to band together to defeat the virus. The battle would require personal sacrifices, particularly some personal freedoms. Public opinion polls consistently showed Ardern a supermajority of the population supported her actions, including the lockdown.

      Seventh, Ardern admitted to errors and mistakes, apologized for them, and committed to stop them from reoccurring. For example, testing for COVID‐19 in New Zealand had gotten off to a slow start, the initial Māori COVID‐19 response plan was flawed, communications for arriving passengers at the borders were unclear, and testing for security forces at the borders were inadequate.

      Ardern was particularly effective in using her Facebook and Instagram postings from her home to show solidarity with her constituents. In one posting, she began: “Kia ora, everyone. I’m standing against a blank wall in my house – because it’s the only view in my house that is not messy.” She spoke directly to viewers using her phone at the end of each day, inviting viewers into her home. She wore a sweatshirt, her hair was messy, and she looked tired. New Zealander’s could easily identify with her.

      When talking about COVID‐19 on social media, there was an obvious change in her tone, projecting herself as a listening, caring, and empathic mother. She was often joined by public health experts. Just as President Franklin Roosevelt used his radio Fireside Chats in the 1930s and 1940s to explain issues and policy to Americans, Ardern used social media to explain COVID‐19 issues and her COVID‐19 policies.

      3.2.3 Characteristics and Limitations of Risk Management Regulations and Standards

      Compounding nearly every problem that affects risk communication are beliefs by the public that regulations and standards are often too weak, that risk management authorities have, in the past, overpromised and under‐delivered, and that government and industry have often done a poor job in managing risk and communicating risk information. Perceptions of poor risk management and communication often lead to people overreacting or under‐reacting, taking inappropriate actions, and losing trust in risk management authorities.

      Several factors compound these perceptions and problems.

      3.2.3.1 Debates and Disagreements

      Many technical, engineering and scientific professionals have often engaged in highly visible debates and disagreements about the reliability, validity, and meaning of the results of risk assessments. Many times, equally prominent experts have taken diametrically opposed positions on the risks associated with a diverse set of hazards and events. For example, experts disagree about the risks associated with nuclear power plants, hazardous waste sites, asbestos, electric and magnetic fields, lead, radon, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), arsenic, dioxin, genetically modified organisms, industrial emissions, childhood vaccination, climate change, terrorism, and contagious diseases like influenza and COVID‐19. While such debates can be constructive for the development of scientific knowledge, they often undermine public trust and confidence.

      3.2.3.2 Limited Resources for Risk Assessment and Management

      Resources for risk assessment and management are seldom adequate to meet demands for definitive findings and rapid regulatory action. Stakeholders are typically not satisfied by authorities’ explanations that generating valid and reliable data is expensive and time‐consuming, or that regulatory actions are constrained by resource, technical, statutory, legal, or other limitations.

      3.2.3.3 Underestimating the Difficulty of and Need for Risk Communication

      Resources for risk communication training, planning, implementation, and evaluation are seldom adequate. Resources include funding, staff, space, and equipment. Several reasons explain the lack of resources. First, many risk managers see little value added by risk communication activities, especially when compared to the value added by collecting additional technical data. Second, many risk managers do not see risk communication as a complex skill, let alone a science‐ and evidence‐based discipline. Third, risk communication is often seen as a relatively simple task, requiring little more than the ability to put an understandable sentence together. Fourth, many risk managers believe incorrectly that technical facts speak for themselves. They see the main job of managers is to get the technical facts right, tell people the facts, and explain what the facts mean. Fifth, many risk managers believe that credentials and experience alone (e.g., “I’ve done this all my life”) are sufficient preparation for producing an effective risk communication.

      3.2.3.4 Lack of Coordination and Collaboration

      Coordination and collaboration among risk management authorities are seldom adequate. In many debates about risks, for example, lack of coordination and collaboration has severely undermined public trust and confidence. Compounding such problems is the lack of consistency in approaches to risk assessment and management by authorities at the local, regional, national, and international levels. For example, only limited requirements exist for regulatory agencies to develop coherent, coordinated, consistent, and interrelated plans, programs, and guidelines for managing risks. As a result, risk management systems are often highly fragmented. This fragmentation often leads to jurisdictional conflicts about which organization or agency, or level of government has the ultimate responsibility for assessing and managing a particular risk. Lack of coordination, different mandates, and confusion about responsibility and authority also lead to the production of multiple and competing estimates of risk. A commonly observed result of such confusion is the erosion of trust, confidence, and acceptance.

      3.2.4 Characteristics and Limitations of Traditional Media Channels in Communicating Information about Risks

      Because traditional broadcast and publishing media – newspapers, television, radio, and magazines – are in the business of selling news, journalists favor stories that attract readers, viewers, and listeners. Stories about conflicts, disagreements, and inconsistencies attract media attention. Journalists also favor stories that contain dramatic material, especially dramatic stories with clear villains, victims, and heroes. Much less attention is typically given to daily occurrences.

      In reporting about risks, journalists often focus on the same characteristics of a risk that raise public concerns, including a lack of trust in risk management organizations, the potential for adverse outcomes, a lack of familiarity with the risk, scientific uncertainty, risks to future generations, unclear benefits, inequitable distributions of risks and benefits, and potentially irreversible effects. Traditional media coverage of risks is frequently deficient in that many stories contain oversimplifications, distortions, and inaccuracies. For example, traditional media reports on cancer risks often provide few statistics on general cancer rates for comparison; often provide little information on common forms of cancer; rarely address public misperceptions about cancer; and provide little information about detection, treatments, and other protective measures.

      Journalists achieve objectivity in a story by balancing opposing views. Truth in journalism is often different from truth in science. In journalism,

Скачать книгу