Risk communication is a difficult form of writing where the author must analyze an issue, problem, and solution to a topic while keeping their audience’s knowledge of the topic in mind. The following three examples show how risk communication can be used and discuss the dangers of not carefully addressing parts of the topic or parts of the audience’s needs. 

24

Fox’s 24 has been indirectly and directly used as a form of risk communication since the beginning of its first season. It has indirectly been used as a form of risk communication on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction because the federal government has not given accessible information to the public on these topics. The government surely talks about it, but fact gets mixed with fiction because most citizens do not go looking for accurate information and they trust that TV, movies, and the news are given them such. 

The show has been used as a direct form of risk communication due to forums such as the one held by the Heritage Foundation called ” ‘24′ and America’s Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction or Does it Matter?” The Heritage Foundation invited three actors from the show to contribute to the discussion of how the television show contributes to counterterrorism efforts in the United States. Others invited to the forum were Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and radio host Rush Limbaugh. Instead of discouraging the relationship between the fictional show and counterterrorism efforts, Chertoff praised the characters and said that “such perseverance will help America defeat terrorism” (Washington Post).

Allowing such a blur of lines causes people to think that this show is real. Despite objections from the producers and actors of the show saying that the show is fictitious, experts still use it as an example of counterterrorism. The underlying problems is whether it is ethical to allow the public to see the show 24 as realistic and to use the information seen and learned from the show to access risk in real life. The representatives of the federal government had the opportunity to define a clear line between the truth of the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the fictitious portrayal of the threat in the show and the media. Without this distinction, it is difficult for the public to decide which information to believe – that of the federal government that has covered up information in the past or that of a television show with their favorite actor. 

FEMA – “Are You Ready?”

This guide that was created by the Federal Emergency Management Agency displays two of the three spans to make their argument that national security is necessary and that citizens can prepare themselves for attacks and natural disasters. The issue span is neglected mainly because most citizens would agree that national security is an issue that is worth funding and creating programs for. The problem span is introduced at the start of each section of threat to national security (i.e. flooding, radiological dispersion devices, etc). This section talks about different aspects of each problem and how the problem has occurred in the past. The solution span is mixed with the problem span and comprises a larger section than the other span. This is in part because the main point of this guide is to inform citizens of preparedness and what they can do themselves in case of an emergency.

The guide gives an excellent summary of the problem and the solution to each national security problem; however, the main problem is that not many people have seen this guide. It is available on line and probably in most federal offices, but that requires citizens to go in search of the information, which is unlikely to happen. Because of the lack of accessibility to the public, this makes the guide by FEMA useless despite the well-laid out information. 

Radiation Event Medical Management - website overview of RDDs

The Radiation Event Medical Management is a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Their overview about radiological dispersion devices aims to educate those who are emergency responders. On the website, the information is set up providing a brief overview of what an RDD is, other methods of dispersing radioactive materials, lists potential material to be used, guidelines pertaining to the exposure amounts of radiation, and resources about responding to such an emergency. The website provides a clear issue span by giving the definition of an RDD and what its impacts are. It also provides a clear problem span by stating the potential outcomes of an attack. The solution span is slightly difficult to discern from the website, but becomes clear if you look move onto the links included in the last table of the page. Here, we learn of different agencies and each of their ideas on how an emergency responder should take action in case of an RDD incident.

Overall, this website provides clear information within distinct spans. Those who wrote the document knew that their primary audience was those who were within the emergency management field. However, I don’t think that the authors of this thought about the problems with this being online. With a simple internet search, anyone can find this information. This creates a problem since the language is fairly technical (i.e. information about radioactive material and isotopes) and is aimed at those who work in the field. If the website authored offered a less-technical version or provided additional links that furthered explained technical terms.