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.

Of the four articles that we read this week, the two that had the most relevance to my topic of radiological dispersion devices (RDDs) were “A Diagnostic for Risk Communication Failures” and “Ethical Issues.” These readings address reasons why better risk communication has not been taken by the government in addressing the risk of an RDD attack.
In “A Diagnostic for Risk Communication Failures,” the authors, Leiss and Powell make the argument that the public and the experts perceive and assess risks differently. These differences in perception create a “risk information vacuum” where the public is not getting the proper information and the experts are not trying to give the proper information to the public. Instead of receiving accurate information, the public attains information from inaccurate sources. Sources mentioned in the article include media reports which may increase fear in the public or skew information from interest groups.

This “risk information vacuum” perfectly explains one of the problems with risk communication in the area of RDDs. Most citizens do not know what an RDD is, but may have heard of a “dirty bomb” (another name for RDDs) from television shows like Fox’s “24.” The portrayal of RDDs or any weapon of mass destruction in television or movies is usually exaggerated. The destruction, the death, the survivability, and other consequences are created in order to fit the plot line or characters. However, many people watching do not realize this and may actually believe that this would happen. This is especially true when information is not given to the public from government agencies to show otherwise.

A second problem that involves the “risk information vacuum” is that once the public is “informed” by movies, TV, or media on the issue it may be difficult for the government or other organizations to convince the public that they are wrong in their assessment of RDDs. This will continue to frustrate the situation and may make it worse.

The second article “Ethical Issues” from Lundgren’s and McMakin’s Understanding Risk Communication addresses ethics in risk communication. The authors write of the influence of personal, social, and organizational ethics on the role of risk communicators. Ethics can be described as an individual’s convictions and what they find to be right or wrong. If someone is making an ethical decision they will do what they believe is morally right for them to do. Also, a person may refuse to follow someone or a group that is not acting as they see is ethical.

To an extent, I find this to be an issue with my topic. The public may not see the government as always acting ethically and may not trust them because of this. The public may find the government untrustworthy in disseminating information due to other incidents in the past (i.e. Hurricane Katrina) and may not trust the government to give accurate information. This makes it difficult for agencies such as FEMA to produce information about RDDs and other weapons of mass destruction and have faith that the public will follow it.

Both of these articles show the two main problems with communicating the risk of RDDs to the pubic – untrustworthy sources (i.e. the government) and sources that give inaccurate information (i.e. movies and TV).