Pr - Truyền thông - Căn bản trong truyền thông nguy cơ

GS TS BS LÊ HOÀNG NINHTruyền thông nguy cơ tốt Chuyển những kiến thức khoa học và kết quả đánh giá nguy cơ thành các từ, cụm từ dễ hiểuGiải thích rõ ràng biên dđộ không chắc chắn, các thiếu hụt về kiến thức và việc triển khai các chương trình nghiên cứuNêu rõ vấn đề nào là tin cậy và sự tin tưởngHiểu đúng các vấn đề nguy cơ công cộng đặc biệt là xu thế , chiều hướng định tínhTruyền thông nguy cơ tốt ( t t)Biết các vấn đề chuyên biệt có thể nổi lên trong lãnh vực công cộng, cảm nhận của cộng đồng Phân tích các điều kiện cần để thông tin cho công đồng và cơ hội tham gia cộng đồngNhững bước trong truyền thông nguy cơ tốtChấp nhận những tranh luận khác/ trái chiềuAsk permissionApologizeClean upShare (benefits or control)Give credit where it is dueTruyền thông nguy cơNhu cầu cần cóthe message (information)the source (origination point of message)The communicatorthe channel (path)receiver (termination point)Tin / the MessageWho is the target audience?How can they be reached?What level of education do they have?What do you need to tell them?Nguồn / the SourceAll sources are not equal (by decreasing trustworthiness):Family DoctorUniversity researchermediaLocal governmentFederal governmentIndustryNeeds to have:EmpathyTrustworthiness (must be earned)Showing emotionGood speakerEye contactIdentify with audienceNgười truyền thông CommunicatorChannel or MediumVery important to choose the correct one for your targetEntire messages can be missed if wrong medium is chosenFarmers and pesticide warnings on late night TVComplex written materials for Grade 6 education Written materials for evacuation notice due to fireRadio messages in English for French audience, etcBa luật trong truyền thông nguy cơtell people that you have determined they need to knowtell them what they must know so that they can understand and feel that they understand the infoadd qualifiers to prepare them for what you are not telling them (until more info becomes available)EPA Risk Communication GuidelinesAccept and involve public as a legitimate partnerPlan carefully and evaluate performancelisten to your audiencebe honest, frank and opencoordinate and collaborate with other credible sourcesmeet the needs of the mediaspeak clearly and with compassionPowell’s Lessons in Risk CommunicationA risk information vacuum is a primary factor in the social amplification of riskensure the vacuum either does not exist, or fill it with useful risk messagesRegulators are responsible for effective risk communicationHealth Canada has an established practice of not announcing the issuance of a regulatory decisionUS FDA regularly makes brief statements in conjunction with regulatory actionsLessons (cont’d)Industry is responsible for effective risk communicationprimarily workplace hazardspopulation health hazards (foodborne, etc)general environmental hazards (pesticides, etc)workplace and general env. hazards (metals, etc)incremental risks produced as a byproduct of beneficial industrial products (pharmaceuticals, modern transportation, etc)Lessons (cont’d)If you are responsible, act early and oftensome upcoming risks in the next decade arefood safetyendocrine disruptorsgreenhouse gases and global climate changebiotechnology, especially agricultural applicationshealth impacts of atmospheric pollutantsThere is always more to a risk issue than what science sayswhat about emotion, moral issues, etc.Lessons (cont’d)Always put the science in a policy contextwhatever the risk controversy, the pubic will demand action by the politiciansban the substance, control the exposure, etcEducating the public about science is no substitute for good risk communication practiceprovide lots of information, how and why things are going to be doneBanish “no risk” messagesLessons (cont’d)Risk messages should address directly the “contest of opinion” in societyacknowledge the divergent opinionsexplain the range of risk estimateslegitimate the people who disagree with your risk estimatesCommunicating well has benefits for good risk managementHow to Communicate Risk to Public?all we have to do is:get the numbers righttell them the numbersexplain what we mean by the numbersshow them that they have accepted similar risks in the pastshow them that it is a good idea for themtreat them nicelymake them partnersAll of the aboveby Baruch FischoffAvoid areas of confusionZero riskProbabilitySignificantToo careful estimatesNegative vs. positive findingsPopulation vs. individual riskRelative vs. absoluteAssociation vs. causationCommunication Problemsoccur when the message;is not what the audience wants to hearis poorly presentedis impropercomes from the wrong sourceis sent via the wrong channel10 Deadly Sins of PresentingAppearing unprepared. Handling questions improperly. Apologizing for yourself or the organization. Not knowing knowable information. Unprofessional use of audiovisual aids. Seeming to be off schedule. Not involving participants. Not establishing rapport. Appearing disorganized. Providing the wrong content. Identifying Strategieslook for use of confusing terms in your messageeither remove them or explain themstep back and review wordinglisten to other non-scientific discussions to see use of words and their meaningadopt the popular usage of the word and its meaningID Strategies (cont’d)Pre-test your messageuse friend or family member (non-scientific)ask them to identify words of concern or confusionDiscuss your message with your “mock” audiencemay find out that your explanation is not good enoughmay determine where your communication went wrongDealing with the Mixed Messagesubstitute less confusing wordsif the word is still needed, clearly define it in the textgive examples of intended meaning and some misuses of the termright in the text of the messageuse analogies, definitions, comparisons to help explain the termbe consistent in the use of the termDesigning your Risk CommunicationChoose your forumChoose your messageChoose your sourceKnow your audience!Focus groupHow People LearnHow do people learn?Figure 1-1. Easiest Format to Learn From - Preferences by Age Group, From EPA, 2004, Evaluation of Mercury Risk Communication Messages.Exercise: choose your mediumBreak into groupsChoose your medium based on who the intended audience is (reading from EPA Graph on how people best integrate knowledge)How would you choose to tell:50+ women the risks of hormone replacement therapy?Teenagers the risks of texting and driving?A small community of the acceptability of a new incinerator?Know your audienceThe likelihood of achieving a successful risk communication program increases with your knowledge of those with whom you are communicating. Early in the process, know who your publics are, what their concerns are, how they perceive risk, and whom they trust.Characteristics of your PublicsConcerns Attitudes Levels of interest Levels of involvement Histories Levels of knowledge Opinions Reasons for interest Types of involvement Are they potential supporters or potential adversaries?Interacting with the Community(Chess et al. 1988)Citizen involvement is important because people are entitled to make decisions about issues that directly affect their lives; input from the community can help the agency make better decisions; involvement in the process leads to greater understanding of - and more appropriate reaction to - a particular risk; those who are affected by a problem bring different variables to the problem-solving equation; and cooperation increases credibility. Creating the MessageWhat are the three most important things you would like your audience to know? What are the three most important things your audience would like to know? What are the three most important things your audience is most likely to get wrong unless they are emphasized? (Vincent Covello) Sound bite research: Assumption: national news, controversial topic 7 to 9 seconds (21-27 words, 30 words max.) 3 messages 9 second knowledge/trust window (Vincent Covello) Risk Information Vacuumwork of risk communication is to fill the gap between public knowledge and scientific assessment of riskgap will always existhow to fill it is the questionrisk information vacuum arises whenover a long period of time, scientists make no special effort to communicate the results being obtained regularly and effectively to the publicinstead, partial scientific info dribbles out here and there, being interpreted in apparently conflicting ways and increases the public’s fearVacuum (cont’d)failure to implement good risk communication practices gives rise to a risk information vacuumthis failure can have grave and expensive consequences for those regarded as being responsible for protecting the public’s interestsociety abhors a vacuum, so it is filled from other sourcesVacuum (cont’d)the vacuum gets filled:events reported in the media will become the basis for the public framing of these risksan interest group takes up the challenge and fills the vacuum with its own information and perspectivesthe intuitively based fears and concerns of individuals grow & spread until they become a substantial consensus in the arena of pubic opinionvacuum is filled by soothing sentiments of politicians“there is no risk of danger from ......”Examples of Vacuumsdioxinsoutrageous media headlinesscientific researchno communications on the issue until too lateGreenpeace filled the vacuummad cow diseasepanic ensued when government did not provide details on the suspicions around the spread of BSEvacuum was filled by media and individual suspicions that become consensusExamples of Vacuumssilicone breast implantsmanufacturers did not disclose their information in a timely mannerfailed to encourage a frank and open discussion of potential risksvacuum was created by the lack of this discussionpanic and fear of autoimmune diseases filled the vacuumlawsuits began and are still costing billions of dollarsno scientific information to support the claimsExamples (cont’d)genetically altered/engineered cropspeople upset because the technology is unfamiliargovernment doesn’t want to talk about the issues with the publicvacuum will be filled, and it may be damaging to the industryWhy Aren’t the Experts Trusted?expert group may have financial interest in proving the risk is smallremediation technology spokesperson wanting to use the technologylocal mayor wanting to get re-electedcompany spokesperson not wanting plant shut downhistorical examples exist of where experts were wrongand handful of dissenters and activists were rightWhy aren’t the experts trusted? (cont’d)scientists tell us that risk assessment is a rough science and subject to errorneed to better explain how risk assessment is doneneed to better explain the use of safety factorssome environmental risks are gradual, delayed, geometrical (made worse by other risks)better act noweven though no evidence yet existsWhat will good risk communication do?over time good risk communication practices will:nurture a facility for interpreting risk numbersincluding the meaning of risk estimates and the uncertainty associated with themhelp people to put the whole assortment of risks affecting them into a broad frameworkrelative risk, comparative riskbuild institutional structures for arriving at a consensus on risk management options, and for allocating risk reduction resources effectivelyWhat is Risk?risk= hazard + outragepublic cares too little about hazardexpert cares too little about outrageexperts need to realizeoutrage is as real as hazardoutrage is as measurable as hazardoutrage is as manageable as hazardoutrage is as much a part of risk as hazardoutrage is as much a part of your job as hazardPeter SandmanOther Facts on Riskpeople overestimate hazard and are outragedwhich comes first?misunderstand hazard and get outraged?get outraged and misunderstand hazard?who is right?usually experts are right about hazardusually public is right about outrageHow to Solve Risk Dilemma?solution experts musttake public outrage seriouslykeep outrage separate from hazardrespect people’s outrageRisk Communication: Myths and Actions (Chess et al. 1988)Belief in some common myths often interferes with development of an effective risk communication program. Consider the myths and actions you can take.Myth: We don't have enough time and resources to have a risk communication program.Action: Train all your staff to communicate more effectively. Plan projects to include time to involve the public.Myths 2Myth: Telling the public about a risk is more likely to unduly alarm people than keeping quiet.Action: Decrease potential for alarm by giving people a chance to express their concerns.Myth: Communication is less important than education. If people knew the true risks, they would accept them.Action: Pay as much attention to your process for dealing with people as you do to explaining the data.Myths 3Myth: We shouldn't go to the public until we have solutions to environmental health problems.Action: Release and discuss information about risk management options and involve communities in strategies in which they have a stake.Myths 4Myth: These issues are too difficult for the public to understand.Action: Separate public disagreement with your policies from misunderstanding of the highly technical issues.Myth: Technical decisions should be left in the hands of technical people.Action: Provide the public with information. Listen to community concerns. Involve staff with diverse backgrounds in developing policy.Myths 5Myth: Risk communication is not my job.Action: As a public servant, you have a responsibility to the public. Learn to integrate communication into your job and help others do the same.Myth: If we give them an inch, they'll take a mile.Action: If you listen to people when they are asking for inches, they are less likely to demand miles. Avoid the battleground. Involve people early and often.Myths 6Myth: If we listen to the public, we will devote scarce resources to issues that are not a great threat to public health.Action: Listen early to avoid controversy and the potential for disproportionate attention to lesser issues.Myths 7Myth: Activist groups are responsible for stirring up unwarranted concerns.Action: Activists help to focus public anger. Many environmental groups are reasonable and responsible. Work with groups rather than against them.High Hazard, low outrageKeep the risk message short.Make the risk message interesting.Stay on message.Test the risk messages.Plan and prepare for a long-term endeavour.Appeal to needs.Appeal to emotions, especially fear.’dSee fear arousal as a competitionDon’t neglect other emotions. Identify and give people task that they can do.Give people a selection of tasks to choose from.Sequence recommended precautions.Think in stages.Focus resources on teachable moments.Cont’dBe alert for a short-term over-reaction.Be alert for signs of denial.Identify and address persuasion facilitators.Identify persuasion barriers and consider addressing them.Express empathy for apathy.Consider an alternative: pre-crisis communication.What is a Focus Group?special kind of interview for the purpose of collective information about a specific subject or area of concernuseful for gathering information on risk perceptionsused to assess needs, preferences and attitudesinformation can then be used to formulate risk messagesdetermine appropriate channelchoose a communicatorframe the risk information in an acceptable wayFocus Group Designfacilitator spends 2-8 hours with eight to twelve peoplejob is to ensure all areas are exploredusually has a helper to make group work betterfree flowing discussiongroup usually made up of individuals who have something in commonage, activity, employed by same company, etc.record activities on flow chart or tapeWhy use a focus group?allows participants to discuss a subject openly and in great detailresearch can be conducted quicklyorganize, conduct and analyse research from several focus groups in as little as 2 weeksdecisions can then be implemented almost immediatelyfar less intimidating or frustrating than other forms of researchanxiety of the individuals is lessened in the group contextGoals for Collecting Informationdetermine the interests, needs, attitudes of a sample of community members about a particular risk issueobjectivesdetermine attitudes and opinions already in existencedetermine knowledge level about this particular riskdetermine the resources necessary to better communicate riskobtain ideas on how to best communicate with this communityIdentifying Participantslook carefully at the communitydemographicsdetermine who may have most need for the risk informationwho is more interested?usually no more than 8 groups are necessarymore important than numbers is how the groups are chosenHow to Contact Participants?telephonelettersmeeting with peoplemeeting with leaders of already established organizationshow to introduce yourselfwhy is issue importantwho you arewhat is the objective of the focus groupwhy is the individual valuablePlanning and Preparationplacefind a comfortable location, accessible to the majoritymake sure there are enough chairs and room for everyonetime and dateconvenient to majoritybe there an hour before handlet everyone know how long it will be, and stick to itdon’t go longer than 2 hoursLeading the Focus Groupguidelinesno right or wrong answersopinions are wantedwe do not have to agreeit is important for everyone to participatewe will finish in two hoursyour names will be confidentialall the information will be used in your communityFocus Group Skillsfacilitatoravoid a question and answer sessionlet it be openset a cooperative tonebe open and pleasantbe prepared and organizedestablish and maintain an easy rapportbe non-judgmentaluse probing techniques (to get further information)Closing the Focus Groupsummarize the session brieflythank them for their ideasask if they want to know the resultsask them if they want to keep in touchgive them your name and number for future contactlet them know when the information will be released to the communityand when they will be able to give feedbackNelson FokCase StudiesChoose one of the 4 cases:Who is your audience?What is your message?What three things do you want to communicate?What words will you use?Who is your communicator?What/who is your source?What will be your method/forum?Case 1E coli has been found in water supply for a small area of cottage country, rural Canada. Case 2Breast feeding rates are very low in your health region. You have been tasked with trying to improve the rate to national levels.Case 3A local industry wants to build an incinerator in your area. They have been a good corporate citizen in the past, and have good environmental history. Your department has approved the incinerator. The local people are upset and demanding answers. They are worried about cancer and emissions.Case 4A poor result from a food inspection has resulted in closing down a famous restaurant in the middle of tourist season. The owners, some public and the mayor are upset with your department.Present results of Case Study