Validating audio data
The video covers the same ground as the first half-day of my September 2010 risk communication seminar for the Rio Tinto mining company, listed below under the title “Outrage Management Course.” There are differences, but they’re very minor given that a half-decade had passed and this time I was talking to a regulatory agency instead of a mining company. Other environmental regulators from throughout Australia were also invited to attend the EPA seminar, courtesy of the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators Network (AELERT), which videotaped the first morning.AELERT also made three edited segments based on the raw footage.(In fairness, he asked about social media as well as mainstream media.) As always, I prefer the longer or more idiosyncratic interviews. Produced by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1994 In my approach to risk communication, explaining the data is secondary; addressing outrage – raising it, reducing it, or helping people cope with it – is what’s crucial.Nonetheless, the time comes in most risk communication efforts when you’ve got to explain the data.Presented at the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens GA, October 16, 2013 In October 2013, I spent three days at the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication.The main agenda was to negotiate a possible “Sandman Archive” of my papers and web materials, an initiative of the new Grady program in health and risk communication.This video clip outlines the three main paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy (when hazard is high and outrage is low); outrage management (when hazard is low and outrage is high); and crisis communication (when hazard and outrage are both high).This video clip describes three risk communication “games”: follow-the-leader (when you’re talking to an audience with no prior opinion); donkey (when you’re talking to an audience whose prior opinion you’re trying to change); and above all seesaw (when your audience is ambivalent, torn between the opinion you’re championing and an opposing opinion).
But I did try to focus especially on what the nuclear power industry and its supporters get wrong – for example, imagining that their core communication mistake is failing to sell their strengths effectively, whereas I believe it is failing to acknowledge their problems candidly.
This video clip runs through the twelve principal components of outrage (voluntary versus coerced, natural versus industrial, etc.).
Then it illustrates these components with a seat-of-the-pants “outrage assessment” of genetically modified food.
This studio-produced 1994 video focuses on three key aspects of quantitative risk communication: (This video was produced in 1994 by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. With AIHA’s permission, the entire video is now available free of charge online.) Podcast for the “Atomic Insights” website, May 31, 2013 (with Rod Adams, Margaret Harding, Meredith Angwin, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker) Rod Adams runs a website called “Atomic Insights” that promotes nuclear power.
In early May 2013 he discovered my approach to outrage management, and put posts on his own website and on an American Nuclear Society website urging nuclear power proponents to learn outrage management.