Are there particular industries or companies that attract a larger portion of “social media risk” than others?
A colleague of mine recently asked that question and I thought I would share a version of my response.
Rather than focus on vertical industries or specific brands/companies, it might be more instructive to look at three different categories of the types of anger or scrutiny that can snowball when pushed downhill by digitally networked communities. Here are three that I see regularly:
After my March 16 post on risk communications related to the Japan radiation threats, I decided to continue the dialogue with Peter. We traded some emails last Wednesday, which I thought I’d summarize here (edited for brevity/clarity):
Peter,
Three interesting articles to share:
- AP story on concerns over tap water. Note the quotes that suggest “stress over the tap water is more dangerous than the tap water itself.”
- Ropeik weighs in.
- Criticisms on risk communications from the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Side note – years ago, I analyzed the Union and found it to be more aligned with political leanings than scientific. I wonder if that’s still the case.
– J.D.
Here is an edited summary of Peter’s insightful responses:
Continue reading More Peter Sandman analysis on Japan radiation threat communications
The nuclear radiation risk in Japan seems to be growing by the day (by the hour?).
How does one attempt to put context on that risk?
On March 14, in that moment in time, The Wall Street Journal opinion page (sub. required) attempted to do just that through the voice of William Tucker, an expert on (and proponent of) nuclear power.
Key quotes:
Even while thousands of people are reported dead or missing, whole neighborhoods lie in ruins, and gas and oil fires rage out of control, press coverage of the Japanese earthquake has quickly settled on the troubles at two nuclear reactors as the center of the catastrophe….
The core of a nuclear reactor operates at about 550 degrees Fahrenheit, well below the temperature of a coal furnace and only slightly hotter than a kitchen oven…. You can’t have a “runaway reactor,” nor can a reactor explode like a nuclear bomb. A commercial reactor is to a bomb what Vaseline is to napalm….
There was a small release of radioactive steam at Three Mile Island in 1979, and there have also been a few releases at Fukushima Daiichi. These produce radiation at about the level of one dental X-ray in the immediate vicinity and quickly dissipate….
If a meltdown does occur in Japan, it will be a disaster for the Tokyo Electric Power Company but not for the general public. Whatever steam releases occur will have a negligible impact. Researchers have spent 30 years trying to find health effects from the steam releases at Three Mile Island and have come up with nothing. With all the death, devastation and disease now threatening tens of thousands in Japan, it is trivializing and almost obscene to spend so much time worrying about damage to a nuclear reactor.
I want to believe Tucker, as I’m sure many others do. But there’s something amiss with his overabundant “calm context.” Something about the way he’s presented his case….
For guidance, I emailed the Tucker article to risk-communications guru Peter Sandman. Peter graciously shared his insights with me – and then with all of his followers through a guestbook post (with my permission, post-haste).
I encourage you to read Peter’s full response through the link above. I’ve have Peter’s permission to cross-post some highlights here:
Continue reading Japan’s radiation threat: Sandman’s risk communications analysis
Earlier this week, I stumbled upon another tasty infographic from David McCandless. Click here or on the image to see the interactive graphic on his website:
Titled “Mountains Out of Molehills: A timeline of global media scare stories,” McCandless illustrates some media coverage imbalance on threats that did not materialize into high fatalities.
From this, you could conclude that this is bad hype – in the interest of higher ratings, the media stokes public fears and sensationalizes uncertainty. You may be right.
Alternatively, you could conclude that this is good hype.
I’m delighted to launch this interview series – dubbed Three Tough Q’s – with one of the true luminaries of risk and crisis communication, Peter Sandman. If you haven’t had the privilege, I encourage you to attend one of Peter’s speaking engagements or tap the cornucopia of resources on his Web site.
Interview highlights appear here, but each question also links to the complete, robust responses that appear on Peter’s Web site.
Without further ado – enter, Sandman:
