The promotional video for the Naomi Klein’s book The Shock Doctrine provides an example for both effective uses of visual media and ineffective uses of visual media. The video and, from what I can tell, the book discuss the government’s use of Milton Friedman’s theory of economic shock treatment or what she calls the “shock doctrine.” The theory is that the government use moments of crisis to push through policies that were unpopular to the public prior to the crisis. The government will be able to pass these policies because people will view leaders as working towards the “common good” and may view the policies as restoring the country to the pre-crisis state.

The visuals that Klein and the video’s director Alfonso Cuarớn create are mostly effective; however, there are a few visuals that give a mixed message and others that rely on faulty assumptions.

There are two sets of effective visuals from the video that also give a mixed message to the audience. The first is the series of images that portray the CIA’s methods of torture. The images, which include sleep deprivation and water torture, are shown quickly and they also include the sounds of a quickly beating heart and heavy breathing. The second visual is the series of images of war and invasions. These images include text over them that give statistics or other information. There is also the inclusion of the quickly, beating heart and heavy breathing.

This combination of visual, audio, and in the last image’s case, text gives the audience a mixed message. The point of the video is to argue that using shock to implement policy is wrong, however, Klein is doing the same thing by providing a minor shock to her audience and then telling them to that her theory is correct. By using the same method she condemns, Klein is risking turning away her audience (because they may see this as a media ploy and will disregard the message) and deconstructing her authority.

 The second effective visual is a series of images from that are shown at the beginning of the video. The audience is shown a video from the 1940s of doctors providing psychiatric shock treatment to mentally ill patients. This is followed by the series of images described prior to this about the CIA’s methods of torture. After showing these images, the audience is shown a series of images from wars, invasions, terrorist attacks, etc.

The first set of images implies a physical shock to individuals. The second series of images implies a mental shock to a group of individuals. Klein assumes that the audience will believe that physical shock of torture will create the same effects as a mental shock of a crisis. I think this a faulty premise that she makes in her argument. Clearly, there is a difference between physical shock and mental shock. The effects of one will not create the same effects for the other. Instead of bringing in the images of electric shock treatment and torture, Klein should focus on the shock from crises. This would make her argument stronger and would not require her audience to rely on this assumption.

The choices in visual media made by the director and by the author can be seen as both effective and ineffective. The images of torture and war combined with the fast-paced turn over of images and the audio create a compelling video that does what it sets out to do – promote a book and get the audience interested. However, these choices in media also rely on faulty assumptions and use a method that the book argues against. This may end up turning away more of the audience rather than attracting the audience to the idea. This could be because members of the audience do not agree with the “shock doctrine” or because members of the audience do not agree with the assumptions being made. Either way, Klein and Cuarớn should have better analyzed the audience and should have re-evaluated a proper way of making their argument.

One of the things that is neither addressed in this blog nor in other forms of risk communication about radiological dispersal devices is the comparative risk between RDDs and other problems either pertaining to national security or with other issues.

Within already published and known forms of risk communication about RDDs, the topic of comparative risk is never fully addressed. Of course, there is always the association between RDDs and nuclear weapons, but the threat or risk of an RDD attack is never compared to the threat or risk of other things such as the issue of global warming or the issue of child obesity (see blog roll for more information on these issues). It seems there is a hierarchy that is created through government spending and the popular media of what holds more risk and how people should assess these risk. But is having the decision made for you really the proper way of doing this? Should the government decide which issue is more important by allocating more funding to one program over the other? By doing so, aren’t they putting themselves at risk by not fully informing their citizens?

There is no easy solution to the problem of comparative risk because there will always be issues to compare with other issues. With no easy way to discern which is more important at any given moment, it is difficult for individuals to decide which issue to learn more about or pay more attention to. It is even difficult to depend upon the private sector to disseminate information due to government funding or the sector’s dependence on public opinion. They may not want to risk their own money, time, and other resources on an issue that the public may not see as a high priority.

Because there is no easy way of deciding which issue is more important than another, it is up to an informed citizenry to help the government and the private sector in deciding this hierarchy. Public opinion can sway groups, legislators, and lobbyists to fund research or programs pertaining to a certain issue. Although it is not guaranteed to give enough funding to an issue, it can help bring, if only temporarily, an issue to the public eye. Until the threat of RDDs is widely known and until the federal government sees that this is the most plausible of threats, we must depend on small groups and researchers to find the information and present it to the public.

In Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, visual media is used almost exclusively to convey to the audience the issue, problems, and solutions to global warming. I found that in the three main spans of the documentary (the issue, problem, and solution spans) that Gore used certain types of visuals to get the point across to his audience.

At the beginning of the documentary when Gore is describing what global warming is, he uses a short cartoon to portray the issue. This cartoon is just one of the many things that Gore employs for comic relief on a very serious issue. I believe Gore used this as an introduction to the issue span. The cartoon gives a quick summary of what causes global warming in a humorous manner using a familiar setting to most audience members. Although the cartoon does not give substantial facts, it does gloss over some points that Gore goes over more in depth throughout the issue and problem spans of the documentary. From this visual aide, Gore expands on the definition of global warming, what causes it, and why most scientists believe that it exists. After expanding on the issue of global warming, Gore uses more visual aides to describe the problems at hand.

Gore focuses the most amount of time on the problem span in the documentary than the other three spans. During this part of the film, he shows a series of images and videos that give the audience visual evidence that global warming is an issue and depict the reasons why it is an issue. Some of these images include time series pictures of glaciers and snow on mountains melting, animals that will be endangered because of changing climates, and victims from Hurricane Katrina.

The one image that I think Gore strategically uses as both portraying the issue/problem of global warming and as a means of pathos is the image of New York City if the polar caps melted and flooded. I think Gore included this image to stir the patriotism in Americans into taking action against global warming. By including this image in this section of the film, Gore is assuming that the audience, namely Americans, value our territory, especially where the World Trade Center Memorial is. By playing on people’s values and patriotism, Gore believes that he will be able to bolster the audience to act. This is an important part of this documentary and allows Gore to lead into the solution span.

In one of the final images of the documentary, Gore shows the audience a pie chart that displays the CO2 levels as of now. He then proceeds to say what the impact would be if everyone in the U.S. changed to a more environmentally-friendly lifestyle. He includes such changes as using ethanol, lowering your thermostat 2-degrees, or changing to a compact fluorescent light bulb to reduce your carbon footprint. With each of these things, the amount of CO2 that is displayed in the graph is lowered until at one point it is below the level of CO2 at which we should be.

Although the main part of the film does not expand on the solutions to global warming, this visual portrays in a small part the solution span of the documentary. Gore does not identify all solutions available in the main part of the documentary, but shows most of them in the credits at the end and gives the audience a website to find out more about what they can do to reduce their carbon footprint. The pie chart allows for a simple visual summation of what the information in the credits and on the website have and it also shows the impact of what these things do to the overall environment. This image is a powerful illustration for the conclusion of the film because it sums everything that he talked about throughout. He has already told the audience what the issue is, what the problems are that affect the issue, and now he is showing what the audience (well, those who are convinced that global warming is a problem) can do to solve the problem.

Of the three spans, I think that Gore uses visual media the best in the problem span. I think this is the section that he felt that he needed to spend the most time on because of the skeptics who say that global warming isn’t a problem. By providing logical conclusions based off of empirical evidence, using pathos to stir the audience into action, and using visuals to capture both of these, I think Gore was able to captivate his audience and hopefully get them to act.

There are three types of visuals that I found that can be both useful to my topic and cause problems with my topic. They are the warning symbol for radioactive materials, the images that FEMA uses in their step-by-step on what to do during an RDD attack, and the image of an radiological dispersal device.

 The first image is usually used for a warning sign if there is radioactive material in the area. The most common area that this symbol can be seen is in a hospital. One of the problems with this symbol is that people associate it with nuclear weapons and may view it as something more serious than it is. One of the ways that I could solve this problem within my project is to give a clearer definition of the symbol as it pertains to my project.

 The second image is the step-by-step images that FEMA uses on their website. This document is a visual guide to show what to do in the event of an RDD attack. Not only does this document show images, it also lists steps with each image. This visual is helpful because it explains the images that are given rather than leaving the pictures to be interpreted by the audience. However, I found two problems with this visual. The first is that it is not that accessible to the public. The document is on FEMA’s website where people would have to go searching for it. Most people will not do this or think to do this. The second problem is that this visual guide is similar to the visual guide for a nuclear threat. This may deceive some readers into thinking that the two threats are the same even though it says that a radiation threat is not the same as a nuclear threat.

 The third image is a picture of an RDD. The picture shows the inner workings of the bomb and tells you how the bomb works. This image is helpful because it tells you how the bomb works and its effects. However, the image could also cause problems due to public concerns that RDDs are similar to a nuclear bomb. By seeing the inner workings of the bomb, a person may think that the bomb is just as big a threat as a nuclear bomb. A solution to this problem is to compare the inner workings of a nuclear bomb to the inner workings to an RDD. This way the audience can have visual and textual comparisons of the two bombs and will hopefully be able to determine the bigger threat.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth uses a multimedia presentation, humor, and emotions to convince those who watch it that global warming is a serious problem that not only affect citizens of the U.S., but affects all those on the planet. Overall, the presentation is successful in portraying the issue and problem of global warming; however, I feel that it is lacking in a solution. At the end of documentary, he shows a graph of CO2 levels and how by doing little things we can cut these levels down to below where they were a few decades ago. This is one of the only moments when he addresses a solution in the documentary, but even in this moment he does not give any specifics to the audience.

One reason he may do this is because he provides additional information at the end of the documentary such as the website for the documentary and another website where you can calculate your carbon footprint and it shows what you can do to reduce it. By doing this, Gore is assuming that his main audience has internet capabilities and is willing to take the time to visit these websites. This is a dangerous assumption to make when you are trying to convince a variety of people with a plethora of interests that global warming is a serious problem that is worth their time to find a solution that fits their needs

A second problem with the presentation is in the type of humor that he uses. Some of it is funny and it eases the tension of such a serious topic, but some of it may reduce the fragile authority that he presents to his audience. For example, his humor poking fun at the 2000 presidential election may be unappealing to those who voted for George W. Bush. It could also be unappealing to those who are on the edge of being convinced into action, but find the issue to be too politicized with Gore’s humor.

Gore’s authority is not solidified at the beginning of the documentary. He establishes his past work with global warming (i.e. work with his professor from college on the issue and congressional hearings on the issue), but by bringing up the election again he may be reducing his authority in the eye’s of parts of the audience. I think he should have chosen one joke about it and not have brought up the election for the rest of the presentation, so as to dedicate the time to the seriousness of the issue and the potential solutions that the audience can engage in.

Parts of the documentary that I think that Gore did a good job on is the lay-out of the documentary, primarily the division of the actual presentation and the documentary part. By splitting the documentary into segments separated by film allows the audience who is watching the film to have a break to absorb what they have seen and heard. If he just had the presentation in the film, I do not think it would have held the audience’s attention for long. Most would be bored with it and not be able to take away as much as they can when the documentary is laid out as it is.

Along with this idea, I think that the visuals that Gore uses also captivate the audience. Instead of using an even split of text and visuals, he chose to utilize the visuals. These spanned from the first picture of the earth to video excerpts of glaciers melting. I think that the heavy use of visuals was a better way of providing the audience with an idea of what the problem is rather than using primarily text. Visuals are easier to grasp than text with an issue like this. However, the text that he does use also helps his argument. The few uses of text are with direct quotes from a variety of people such as Mark Twain and Winston Churchill. By using text for these special instances, it gives the audience a break from the visuals and provides a quote that the audience may be familiar with.

A final point about the film pertains to something that Gore addresses early on in the documentary. He says that people need to reassess how they think of warnings. He continues by saying that we (I’m assuming he means those with power and influence) need to find a way to ensure that warnings are based on scientific fact and are heard by the public and followed. I thought this was an interesting point to make in a film that is addressing a general audience. This seems to be something that he should be addressing to a congressional committee rather than in a documentary.

Nonetheless, I think that he makes a good point. There are many situations where we address risks in a similar manner whether it is an issue such as global warming or an issue like national security. Obviously, these are two very different issues with different aspects and dimensions and risks to it, but it seems they are being addressed in a similar manner. The government holds hearings on the issue, creates legislation, implements legislation, and attempts to inform the public on all of it. In some instances it works, in others it doesn’t. In the instances that it doesn’t, the government seems to freeze and not know what to do in order to fix the problem. They don’t know how to address the risk (for a variety of reasons) in a different manner. I think this is why the state/local government and the private sector hold such a powerful influence on issues. Because they are not the national government and are given more flexibility or are able to devote more time and money to a particular issue, they provide innovations and a fresh perspective on the issue that the national government alone could never achieve. I wish that Gore would have addressed this separately from the documentary so as to further explain what he meant by it rather than mention it in passing.

For this week, we read sections of How to Create Powerful Press Releases by Judith Welsh. Discussed in these readings were the ten main reasons for sending a press release and how to write an effective press release. With this in mind, I have thought of three ideas for potential press releases and how they address the rhetorical situation.

1.) Educating a Specific Group - I could send a press release to talk about an upcoming event that would help to educate the public, in particular those in cities, about the threat and risk of an RDD attack. This topic for a press release addresses the rhetorical situation by reaching out to the intended audience in a more efficient way than handing out pamphlets on RDDs.

2.) Attract an Audience - I could send a press release to inform the business community of events that will inform them how they could help keep their business safe before, during, and after an RDD attack. This form of a press release addresses the rhetorical situation by giving information to a specific audience that might not otherwise receive or look for the information. If released, it could also reach and inform others outside of the business community. Informing businesses can also initiate better risk communication practices amongst individuals as well.

3.) To Tell of a New Aspect, Development, or Circumstance of a “product” - This type of press release would be sent if there were new research beginning that deals with radiation treatment, if there were new guidelines on how to protect yourself during an attack, or if a city developed a specific evacuation plan. This press release addresses the rhetorical situation by giving pertinent information that citizens need to know. By showing the public, namely those who live in cities and are most threatened by an RDD attack, that the government or private sector is taking the time to develop and re-develop ideas and research on this situation, it gives a message that the threat is real and that you need to inform yourself about it.

In Chapter 10 of Having Your Say, the “A, but B statement” is introduced as a way of stating your goal and what is blocking your goal from being achieved. For my topic on the threat of RDDs, I have created two such statements to clarify the overall goals of my risk communication and what is hindering the process.

 1.) The federal government should find different ways to provide information on the threat of RDDs to the those who live in areas that are at risk of being attacked by such a device, but it is difficult to do so because of other sources that provide inaccurate information and who are more trusted by the public than the government.

2.) The federal government should re-develop plans that pertain to the handling of the aftermath of an RDD attack, especially those plans about overflow at hospitals and economic disruption, but the elected portion of the government has no incentive to do so since the public does not demand it and is more concerned about other issues.

In the reading “Constraints to Effective Risk Communication,” there are several constraints faced by risk communicators discussed. Amongst these are emotional responses from the audience, believing that the public cannot understand complex sciences, and allowing outside sources to affect the public’s opinion on a risk. These three constraints are difficult to overcome, but I believe through my blog I can address these and hopefully create a successful end to the risk communication process on RDDs.

The first constraint deals with emotional responses from the audience. According to the article these can range from “hostility and outrage, panic and denial, apathy, mistrust of risk assessment, disagreements on the acceptable magnitude of risk, lack of faith in science and institutions, and learning disabilities” (Lundgren 59). I believe that the most common emotional reaction from the audience pertaining to RDDs is denial and apathy. I choose these three for a couple of reasons. Most people pretend as if there is no chance of a terrorist attack happening to them even though there is evidence to prove otherwise. For example, why would the government spend so much money in national security if there was not a real threat? I chose apathy because most people do not care if an attack can happen, especially if they think there is no chance of it happening to them.

I think that my blog can address these emotions by showing people evidence that there is a real threat of an RDD attack occurring. By giving people substantial evidence and educating them through non-technical language, I think I can at least begin to change a person’s individual risk assessment. Dealing with apathetic individuals, on the other hand, might be harder because they have already decided not to learn anymore about the problem.

The second constraint that I think my blog addresses deals with “dumbing” down the audience. Most people who work in science and write risk communication believe that the audience cannot possibly understand scientific terms. They refuse to explain the information in any other way and believe that the audience should learn more about science in order to learn more about the risk. I think that this is a huge problem that needs to be addressed by all risk communicators. The goal in this form of communication is to show the audience there is a problem and a risk and show them how to protect themselves from the risk.

My blog addresses this problem by providing information in an easy to read and understand context. It also provides other information about other sources to look into about the threat of an RDD attack. By giving the reader several different ways of approaching the issue, the reader will feel more comfortable with subject matter and may be able to think of their own solution to the problem.

The third constraint that my blog addresses pertains to risk communicators allowing outside sources to interfere with their own risk communication. This is one of the biggest problems that I have found with my issue. The outside sources that most affect the issue come from misinformation from media outlets and scenes from movies and television. These sources are attractive to the public and many may even find them trustworthy because their favorite actor is in the show or movie. However, these sources are not that credible. Many give exaggerated, overly dramatic depictions of what would really happen if there was a terrorist attack.

My blog addresses this by providing the public with a different way of looking at information. I’m not part of the federal government, so I’m not using an overwhelming amount of technical information and I’m not writing to gain popularity like television shows and movies. I’m giving basic information in a different format in order to inform others of RDDs and tell them about the threat and risk of not knowing or preparing for such an attack.

Hopefully, my blog continues to address these three constraints and creates a comfortable environment where all blog readers can inform themselves on this threat and prepare themselves for such an event.

Here’s a few helpful posts that may interest you.

FEMA – Are You Ready?

This document gives basic information in order to prepare for a variety of national emergencies including a radiological dispersion device attack.

Radiation Event Medical Management

This website provides information to medical facilities about diagnosing and treating those who have been exposed to radiation. On the home page there is a link to treatment for those who are exposed during an RDD attack.

Heritage Foundation – “Dealing with Dirty Bombs: Plain Facts Practical Solutions”

This study gives information about what dirty bombs (RDDs) are and what plans the government already has and suggestions on what they should do.

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Risk assessment of radiological weapons in the hands of terrorists and gives a more scientific background on RDDs.

Heritage Foundation – “24 and America’s Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction, or Does it Matter?”

This link has streaming MP3 from the forum. Also check out the article summing up the event from The Washington Post.

The case study on Risk Communication and the West Nile Virus portrayed the difficulties that many risk communicators may face when developing a plan for the public in preventing a risk. The authors of the article discuss numerous problems in risk communication including risk perception, mental noise, negative dominance, and trust determination (Covello 5). Through the example of the West Nile Virus in
New York City, one can see how these problems may develop.

Whenever the first outbreaks occurred in New York City in the summer of 1999, the city began to develop a response plan to the virus. According the article, the city had three main objectives – improve public awareness, improve public participation, and provide information in a timely manner (Covello 9). To obtain these objections, the city started several different communication programs including public service announcements on the radio and TV, daily press conferences, 24-hour phone lines, and a web site to name a few.

Despite all of these efforts, the city officials failed in their risk communication efforts on a few levels. Three of these ways are included in the problems that face most risk communicators – risk perception by the audience, mental noise that the public faces, and the lack of balance between negative and positive information.

Pertaining to risk perception, city officials failed to do a proper audience analysis to find out how they viewed their risk to the virus. In not evaluating the audience, city officials also did not assess citizens’ fears or concerns of the virus (Covello 10). Nor did officials talk to citizens about the city’s plan to use pesticides to control the mosquito population (Covello 11).

The second problem with the city officials’ risk communication efforts is that they overwhelmed the citizens with information. From the perception one gets from the article, all communication methods were used and flooded with information on the virus. Besides getting information from the city and the media, many citizens probably received information from one another which may have added to the confusion. With so many different sources, false information could have been spread that could increase panic or hostility towards the city programs (Covello 11).

The third problem that the city officials did in their efforts was to have an uneven balance between negative and positive information. Negative information came in the form of what city officials were not doing to prevent the virus from spreading. The public tends to remember the negative aspects rather than the positive. Because of this, officials should have counterweighted the negative information with positive information. For example, the city could have talked about their plans to prevent the virus from spreading and why they were choosing this plan over another.

Overall, I think the main problem that the officials had was providing too much information to the public. With this type of topic, information lines can become mixed and bad information can be given to the public causing unnecessary panic. This in turn can affect the officials’ credibility in the public’s mind. One of the main reasons that the officials probably chose to give this large amount of information to the public was to be able to reach a wide variety of audiences. However, without the proper evaluation of the audience, the city could not have possibly known which form of communication would have worked best with certain groups of people. I think the uneven balance of negative and positive information was not a main problem, but in addition to the other two problems it did not help officials. The lesson learned from this case is that risk communicators need to properly analyze their audience and be careful in the amount and type of information that they give to the public.