A crash course in changing the world.
Peter Sandman , an expert in risk communication explains why risk truly has two elements - hazard and outrage - and why understanding them both is crucial to crisis communication as well as pandemic journalism.
He said that : Risk = hazard + outrage.
That is, the risk that kills people and the risk that upset people are completely different. If you know a risk is deadly, that tells you almost nothing about whether it is upsetting. If you know a risk is upsetting , that tells you almost nothing about whether it is deadly. So essentially, these two variables are unrelated and it doesnot matter what your measure of harm is, across a wide range of harzards; the correlation of between how much harm that hazard does and how upset people get about it is an absurdly low 0.2 correlation.
The key intellectual question in risk perception is " why is this correlation so low ?" The key practical question in risk communication is " how do we get it higher? " Half of the problem in getting the correlation higher is figuring out how to make people more concerned when the risk is serious: the other half of the problem is figuring out how to calm people down when the risk is trivial.
Let's take the concept of risk and divide it into half:
What I learnt from Peter's Sandman's publication on " Covering Risk " is that:
In conclusion, risk covering has to do with managing hazard as well as outrage.