Suchergebnisse

Despite the increased interest in risk communication among government agencies, there is evidence that agencies'risk communication practices lag. We conducted a study to explore which risk communication research would be most important to improve government agencies'risk communication practices. Qualitative interviews and a survey of 145 risk communication experts based in academic institutions and government agencies explored how important research on each of 48 topics would be to improving agencies'risk communication efforts. Respondents identified topics within three areas as priorities for further research: 1) involving communities in agency decisionmaking; 2) communicating with communities of different races, ethnic backgrounds, and incomes; and 3) evaluating risk communication. Both practitioners and researchers responded to additional statements about agencies'risk communication practices with reservations about staff and managers'commitment to effective communication about environmental issues. We discuss the implications of these findings.

A national symposium of risk communication practitioners and researchers was held in 1994 to discuss next steps to improve government agencies'risk communication practices. The symposium focused on three issues which a survey of researchers and practitioners indicated were priorities for risk communication research: integrating outside concerns into agency decision‐making; communicating with communities of different races, ethnic backgrounds and incomes; and evaluation of risk communication. There are indications that the working assumptions underlying these issues are shifting in several distinctive ways. For example, a shift from simply communicating risk to forging partnerships with communities was clearly evident throughout the symposium. Communicating with different social, ethnic, and racial groups gained recognition as a vital component of the risk communication research agenda. Agencies themselves should be the subject of study, according to many symposium participants who were concerned less about the so‐called irrationality of the public and more about the reluctance of agencies to encourage risk communication.

ABC, CBS, and NBC's carefully crafted and expensively produced evening news broadcasts devoted 1.7% of their air time to 564 stories about man‐made environmental risks during the period from January 1984 to February 1986. Little relationship was found between amount of coverage and public health risk. Instead, the networks appeared to be using traditional journalistic determinants of news (timeliness, proximity, prominence, consequence, and human interest) plus the broadcast criterion of visual impact to determine the degree of coverage of risk issues. Government, industry, and citizens accounted for two‐thirds of the sources cited by the networks. Experts and spokespersons for environmental advocacy groups were sparsely used as sources. Given the media's need for news pegs, acute and chronic risk stories were covered differently. Acute risk stories were reported in a clearly defined cycle, peaking on the second day with on‐the‐scene reports and film‐clips of devastation. In keeping with a decrease in visual drama, later reports were shorter and emphasized legal and political considerations. Chronic risk coverage followed the release of new scientific, legal, or political information.