2012
-
Flu Vaccination of Healthcare Workers: Two Risk Communication Issues
Comments on draft recommendations
of the Healthcare Personnel Influenza Vaccination Subgroup, National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, submitted January 14, 2012The public health establishment in the U.S. is pushing hard for mandatory flu vaccination of healthcare workers (HCWs), chiefly on the grounds that vaccinated HCWs are less likely to give patients the flu. A committee of the National Vaccine Program Office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued draft recommendations
that included mandatory vaccination if organizations fail to vaccinate at least 90% of HCWs voluntarily. Comments on the draft were solicited, so on January 14, 2012 my wife and colleague Jody Lanard and I submitted some. We focused on two risk communication issues: the dangers of overstating flu vaccination benefits, and the dangers of requiring reluctant HCWs to get vaccinated. This file is located on this site.
This article is categorized as:
2011
-
Presented at the Oracle Chief Security Officer Summit, San Francisco CA, October 4, 2011
Some Oracle people had heard me speak at a conference on financial information security (for bank IT people, mostly), and asked me to do something similar for its 2011 annual IT security “summit.” The presentation does give occasional IT examples, but mostly it’s an introduction to the basics of risk communication – especially the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three main risk communication paradigms (precaution advocacy, crisis communication, and outrage management). As usual, audience interest focused mostly on outrage management – especially how to calm stakeholders after a breach that turned out minor. They were less interested in how to arouse stakeholder concern about the possibility of a serious breach, a precaution advocacy issue – though arousing CEO concern had some appeal.
This is an audio MP3 file, 62.9MB, 67 min., located off this site.
This article is categorized as:
2010
-
Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication: Alerting, Reassuring, Guiding
Presented to the National Public Health Information Coalition, Miami Beach FL, October 21, 2009
Although this six-hour seminar was entitled “Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication,” NPHIC asked me to go easy on the “radiological” part and give participants a broad introduction to my approach to risk communication, mentioning radiation issues from time to time. So that’s what I did.
Fair warning: These are not professional videos. NPHIC member Joe Rebele put a camera in the back of the room and let it run. You won’t lose much listening to the MP3 audio files on this site instead.
- Part 1 (90-min.)
-
Part One is a introduction to the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three paradigms of risk communication.
- Part Two (155 min)
-
Part Two discusses the seesaw and other risk communication games (thus completing the introductory segment), then spends a little over an hour each on some key strategies of precaution advocacy and outrage management.
- Part Three (72-min.)
-
Part Three is a rundown on some key crisis communication strategies.
This article is categorized as:
Trust the Public with More of the Truth: What I Learned in 40 Years of Risk Communication
Written speech
Audio (they’re pretty different)
(Note: This link launches an MP3 file (62MB; 1 hr 6 min.) on this site.)Link off-site to the video
(Note: This link goes to a page off-site with a link to this video file.)The National Public Health Information Coalition is an organization of federal, state, and local health department communicators. NPHIC asked me to give its 2009 “Berreth Lecture” at its annual conference in Miami Beach – and specified that the presentation should be about myself and my career, not the substance of risk communication. But as I walked the group through my 40 years in risk communication, a substantive theme emerged: that public health communicators are at least as untrustworthy as corporate communicators, that nobody has the courage to trust the public with those parts of the truth that conflict with the message, and that public health agencies need to learn how to cope better with mistrust and outrage. I illustrated my thesis with a lot of flu and other infectious diseases examples. I had written the speech out in advance – something I almost never do – but I departed from my text more than a little, so both versions are here.
The written speech file is located on this site.
The audio file is located on this site.
The video file is located off this site.This article is categorized as:
2009
-
Food Safety Risk Communications
(Note: This link launches an MP3 audio file from this site.)Presented at the Maple Leaf Food Safety Symposium, Mississauga Canada, October 23, 2009
In August 2008, Listeria contamination in Maple Leaf packaged deli meats killed 21 elderly consumers, one of the largest food poisoning disasters in Canadian history. As one small part of its recovery efforts, Maple Leaf Foods sponsored a food safety symposium in October 2009, bringing together producers, retailers, and regulators to talk about lessons learned and ways to protect against Listeria. My presentation on “Food Safety Risk Communication” was inserted as respite from the technical material in most of the other speeches. I did my usual introduction to hazard versus outrage and the kinds of risk communication, and then offered a few food-specific examples (until I ran out of time). Audience comments and questions weren’t recorded; that’s what the occasional moments of dead air are.
This is an audio MP3 file, 19.2MB, 55 min., located on this site.
This article is categorized as:
-
Fundamentals of risk communication: How to talk to patients and the public about pandemic H1N1
Presented to the European Respiratory Society international conference, Vienna, Austria, September 14, 2009
The European Respiratory Society invited me give a 20-minute presentation on pandemic communication at its annual conference, as part of a panel on various aspects of pandemic H1N1. I pleaded for an extra hour right afterwards to go into more detail for those who wanted it. Some 20,000 respiratory disease doctors attended the conference; roughly 2,000 of them were at the panel; about 200 followed me to a smaller room for my extra hour (which I did jointly with my wife and colleague Jody Lanard, an M.D.). Only the panel presentation is posted on the ERS website. It’s mostly an introduction to the basics of risk communication (hazard versus outrage; precaution advocacy versus outrage management versus crisis communication), with some quick comments on the implications for pandemic communication. The meat was in the hour that followed, which unfortunately wasn’t recorded.
This talk is categorized as:
-
Distributed by Project Syndicate, July 27, 2009
Project Syndicate is a nonprofit organization that distributes op-ed commentaries on currently hot topics to newspapers around the world, free of charge. They asked me to do one on how public health officials ought to be communicating with the public about the ongoing H1N1 pandemic. The resulting piece briefly discusses nine mistakes officials should stop making: don’t feign confidence; don’t over-reassure; don’t worry about panic; don’t obsess over accusations of fear-mongering; don’t fight the adjustment reaction; don’t oversell what the government is doing; don’t oversell what the public can do; don’t ask the impossible; and don’t neglect the teachable moment.
Translations available
French: Le B-A BA de la grippe A pour les grands
These files are located off this site.
This article is categorized as:
-
Pandemics: good hygiene is not enough
Published in Nature, May 21, 2009, pp. 322–323
This is a pretty drastic abridgment and a very minimal updating of my April 29, 2009 column, “The Swine Flu Crisis: The Government Is Preparing for the Worst While Hoping for the Best – It Needs to Tell the Public to Do the Same Thing!“ But a Nature commentary can be a lot more influential than a website column, so I was happy to seize the opportunity. The focus, of course, is the same: that the authorities (for example the CDC in the U.S.) are being candid about swine flu but are not urging people to prepare, and not giving people a visceral sense of what a serious swine flu pandemic might be like. Why? Partly because they’re (mistakenly) afraid of frightening the public, and partly because they’re (correctly) afraid of being accused of frightening the public. I argue that they should get over both fears and use the teachable moment … a position I feel even more fervently on May 21 than I did on April 29.
An Adobe Acrobat file (707-kB pdf) of the complete article
is also available. (Note: The Nature links require payment. Free access to a copy is available.) A French translation of this article, originally posted on the website Zone Grippe Aviaire (which has disappeared) is now available on this site.French translation available
En Français: Pandémie: une bonne hygiène ne suffit pas (Nature)
The files are located off this site. The French translation is on this site.
This article is categorized as:
-
Is America Prepared for a Pandemic?
Published in the Washington Post, April 28, 2009
The Washington Post asked me to write a 200-word piece on how I thought the U.S. government was doing on swine flu risk communication. My first draft was 600+ words. Then I revised to around 200, and sent the editor both. He used the short one. I’m posting the long one (“The Government is Preparing for the Worst While Hoping for the Best – Now It Needs to Tell the Public to Do the Same Thing!”) here too. Both emphasize my sense that the government has been preparing for the worst while hoping for the best – but hasn’t yet urged the public to do the same thing.
This file is located off this site. My original is located on this site.
This article is categorized as:
-
Climate Change Risk Communication Dialogue
Excerpts from the RISKANAL listserv, March 24–25, 2009 (plus some follow-up offline correspondence)
In late March of 2009, discussion on the RISKANAL (risk analysis) listserv turned to the psychology of people – including people on the listserv – who are skeptical about global climate change. I had recently dealt with this question in a column for this website on “Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial.” So I posted a comment on the listserv referencing and summarizing the column. The resulting brief dialogue dealt with the motives not just of global warming skeptics but also of global warming supporters. And it led to a further discussion of whether strategic persuasion (on behalf of global warming or any topic) is antithetical to sincerity. I thought it was a good, thoughtful and respectful discussion – worth reprinting here (with the permission of all the participants). After the RISKANAL discussion petered out, I continued to exchange emails (also posted here) with one participant in the dialogue, Stephen L. Brown. Our focus slowly shifted from climate change risk communication to outrage and outrage management – and led to some observations on Steve’s part about outrage that I think are well worth reading, whether you’re interested in global warming or not.
To join RISKANAL, send the following email message to lyris@lyris.pnl.gov:
SUBSCRIBE RISKANAL First_Name Last_NameThis file is located on this site.
This article is categorized as:
2008
-
Breaking the Fourth Wall: How Joe Biden Should Debate Sarah Palin
Posted on the Daily Kos website, September 28, 2008
I was sitting at the breakfast table with my wife and colleague Jody Lanard, pondering how Joe Biden could debate a palpably unprepared opponent without looking either nasty or patronizing. Since Biden faced a dilemma, we reasoned, perhaps the solution was the tried-and-true risk communication response of sharing the dilemma. (See for example “How Safe Is Safe Enough: Sharing the Dilemma.”) By the time we had drafted appropriate language a couple of hours later, we were pretty sure it wasn’t such a good idea. But we sent it to a friend who is also a Democratic netroots heavy (he goes by DemFromCT), and asked him to post it on the Daily Kos if he thought it might be useful (or at least provocative). He did. It attracted 600+ comments in the first three hours (and counting) – nearly all critical of our suggestion, and many with far better suggestions of their own.
This file is located off this site.
-
Plan B: Turning organizations into islands of pandemic influenza preparedness
Published as a Guest Briefing in Osterholm Briefing, published biweekly by CIDRAP Business Source (University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy), September 25, 2008
CIDRAP’s Michael Osterholm publishes a biweekly Osterholm Briefing to help subscribers – mostly businesses – prepare for a possible influenza pandemic. As Deputy Editor of the Briefing’s publisher, CIDRAP Business Source, I send Mike my reactions after each Briefing. He asked me to turn my comments on his September 11 Briefing into a Guest Briefing. I agreed on condition that I could publish it on my website as well. It’s not about risk communication. It’s about Mike’s growing skepticism that most governments and companies will prepare adequately for a possible influenza pandemic, a skepticism I share. And it’s about how preparedness planning should change if you figure those around you are going to be unprepared.
This file is located on this site.
-
Handling explosive emotions demands five acts of empathy
Published in ISHN (Industrial Safety & Hygiene News), May 2008, pp. 1, 24, 26
Dave Johnson, the editor of ISHN, admired my website column on “Empathy in Risk Communication.” But of course it was much too long for him to republish. So he excerpted the less complicated sections, made a few editing and formatting changes, and came up with a shorter, more accessible article.
This file is located off this site.
This article is categorized as:
2007
-
Understanding the Risk: What Frightens Rarely Kills
From the edited transcript of a conference on pandemic media coverage, published in Nieman Reports, vol. 61, no. 1, Spring 2007
For three days starting 30 November 2006, Harvard University’s Nieman Foundation for Journalism ran a conference on how the news media cover (and should cover) the risk of an influenza pandemic. I spoke twice, a stand-alone presentation on “Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Risk Reporting: The Role of Each in Pandemic Preparedness” and a panel presentation on “Fear of Fear and Panic Panic: Is It Okay to Scare People about Pandemics?” The two were abridged and combined into one article when Nieman Reports published an edited transcript in Spring 2007. As compiled by the Nieman Foundation, the published article focuses on two topics – the four kinds of risk communication as applied to pandemic risk and the importance of fear in pandemic preparedness. For the (nearly) unedited transcripts of the two presentations, see below.
This is an Adobe Acrobat (pdf) file,
54 kB, located on this site.This article is categorized as:
-
Risk Perception, Risk Communication, and Risk Reporting: The Role of Each in Pandemic Preparedness
Originally presented at a conference on “Avian Flu, a Pandemic & the Role of Journalists,” Nieman Foundation for Journalism, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, December 1, 2006
An abridged version (
above) of this presentation was published in the Spring 2007 issue of Nieman Reports (see the previous entry). The Nieman Foundation for Journalism also made the original transcript available to me. I edited it very lightly so it makes sense – but it’s still very much a transcript, not a polished article.This file is located on this site.
This article is categorized as:
-
Understanding Human Responses [to pandemic risk]: Communication Focus
Panel discussion at a conference on “Avian Flu, a Pandemic & the Role of Journalists,” Nieman Foundation for Journalism, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, December 2, 2006
I was joined in this panel discussion by three experienced risk communication practitioners, Howard Koh, Glen Nowak, and Dick Thompson. My contribution was entitled “Fear of Fear and Panic Panic: Is It Okay to Scare People about Pandemics?” An abridged version of my presentation and a tiny bit of the Q&A were published in the Spring 2007 issue of Nieman Reports (look two entries up). The Nieman Foundation for Journalism also made the original panel discussion transcript available to me, very slightly edited by them. I edited my parts a bit more thoroughly, though it’s still very much a transcript, not a polished article. I left other people’s presentations and comments alone – so blame any garbles on the transcription process, not the speakers. The conversation ranged widely over the various challenges of pandemic communication.
This file is located on this site.
This article is categorized as:
2006
-
Crisis Communication Best Practices: Some Quibbles and Additions
Published in the Journal of Applied Communication Research, vol. 34, no. 3, August 2006, pp. 257–262
Since 2004 I have been working with the U.S. Government-funded National Center for Food Protection and Defense at the University of Minnesota. One of the projects I worked on was an effort to develop a set of consensus “best practices” in crisis communication. Matthew Seeger wrote up the results in an article entitled “Best Practices in Crisis Communication: An Expert Panel Process.” I got a second bite of the apple when I was asked to write one of four commentaries on Seeger’s article. My commentary, posted here with permission, focuses on some things I think the group missed or got wrong: the importance of fear and other emotions, the need to trust and respect the public, and the over-emphasis on message consistency. Seeger’s article and the other commentaries are available online from the publisher, but only if you pay. A much less detailed PowerPoint on the ten best practices
is available without charge.This title links to an Adobe Acrobat (pdf) file,
57 kB, located on this site. The other two links go off site.This article is categorized as:
-
Recent H5N1 Outbreaks: The Evolving Challenge of Defining and Communicating Pandemic Risk
Transcript of a June 22, 2006 teleconference sponsored by Bio Economic Research Associates
As part of its pandemic preparedness consulting business, Bio Economic Research Associates (“bio-era”) conducts periodic teleconferences for clients and prospective clients. Its June 2006 session featured an illustrated presentation by Jim Newcomb of bio-era, with a detailed update on bird flu developments and pandemic risks. But bio-era managed to squeeze in three other speakers – United Nations pandemic coordinator David Nabarro, the Wildlife Conservation Society’s Billy Karesh, and me. My piece runs from page 23 to page 27. It focuses on the different “kinds” of bird flu/pandemic flu problems, but also includes my answers to questions about how companies should talk about these problems – how restaurants should talk to their customers about bird flu and how manufacturers should talk to their employees about pandemics.
This is an Adobe Acrobat (pdf) file,
4.7MB, located on this site.This article is categorized as:
2005
-
What Motivates Companies – Interview with Peter Sandman (Part 1)
Worst Case Scenarios, Bird Flu, and Risk Perception – Interview with Peter Sandman (Part 2)
Both published in safety AT WORK, December 2005, pp. 7–10 and January 2006, pp. 4–10
In November 2005 I did a two-hour interview in Melbourne with Kevin Jones, editor of Safety at Work, a monthly electronic magazine published out of Australia but distributed worldwide. We covered an extremely wide range of topics – from whether the mining industry is serious about safety (and why it so often sounds like it isn’t) to how to talk about worst case scenarios like a severe influenza pandemic to why I put everything I can on my website and don’t trademark anything. I imagined that Kevin would edit out the boring parts and organize the nuggets. But instead he used the whole two hours verbatim. Because it ranges all over the map, this interview transcript is hard to categorize – but Part 2 has some focused discussion of aspects of pandemic preparedness I haven’t written much about elsewhere.
These are Adobe Acrobat (pdf) files,
(Part 1, 218 kB; Part 2, 387 kB), located on this site.This article is categorized as:
-
Selling Safety: Business Case or Values Case
Published in The Synergist, December 2005, pp. 30–35
I have long argued that corporate environmental performance is better “sold” to stakeholders as a response to pressure than as a self-motivated commitment to the environment; I think claiming to be responsive is both truer and more credible than claiming to be responsible. In this article I make the same case about “selling” safety to employees. When management says it cares more about safety than productivity or profit, I argue, employees are likely to conclude that safety rules have more to do with company PR than company policy, and may “loyally” rather than rebelliously disobey. The article also discusses why both safety professionals and top corporate managers enjoy making a values case for safety, and resist making the business case I think they should make.
This is an Adobe Acrobat (pdf) file,
593 kB, located on this site.This article is categorized as:
-
Risk Communications During a Terrorist Attack or Other Public Health Emergency
Published in Terrorism and Other Public Health Emergencies: A Reference Guide for the Media (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2005), Chapter 11, pp. 184–193
I have a two-page “essay” in this chapter (pp. 190–191) entitled “Public Reactions to Crisis Situations and Communication Implications,” which covers yet again material that is presented in more detail in “Beyond Panic Prevention: Addressing Emotion in Emergency Communication.”
The rest of the chapter (on which I collaborated) is worth reading for its advice to journalists on how the public and the official sources are likely to cope with a terrorism crisis. The rest of the manual is mostly about biological, chemical, and radiological threats and the government agencies that try to address them.The title links to an Adobe Acrobat (pdf) file (
154 kB) located off this site.
The “Beyond” pdf file ( 77 kB) is located on this site.
The rest of the manual is located off this site.This article is categorized as:
-
Presentation at “Bulls, Bears, and Birds: Preparing the Financial Industry for a Pandemic,” a September 23, 2005 New York City conference sponsored by the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC, Deutsche Bank, and Contingency Planning Exchange, Inc.
Despite the title, this brief speech focused mostly on pre-pandemic communication, and especially on the need to overcome official “fear of fear” and scare people into pandemic preparedness.
In addition to the speech transcript (which I edited a little for clarity and grammar), a video of the speech itself is available. These files are located off this site.
This article is categorized as:
-
Public Reactions and Teachable Moments
Published in Homeland Protection Professional, May 2005, vol. 4, no. 4, pp.14–16
This article quickly covers some of the emotional reactions to crisis situations – ground covered in more detail in “Beyond Panic Prevention: Addressing Emotion in Emergency Communication”
and “Adjustment Reactions: The Teachable Moment in Crisis Communication.” Some minor editorial changes made by the magazine’s staff have not been replicated here (only the ones I liked).These files are located on this site, including the Adobe Acrobat (pdf) file
77 kB.This article is categorized as:
-
Bird Flu: Communicating the Risk
Published in Perspectives in Health (Pan American Health Organization), vol. 10, no. 2, 2005, pp. 2–9
PAHO asked us to combine a primer on risk communication with a primer on avian influenza. The resulting article talks about the challenge of alerting the public to bird flu risks, then offers ten risk communication principles, each illustrated with bird flu examples. The PDF file also includes the cover, an editor’s note entitled “Communication: risky business,” and the contents page. (Note the confusion of “bird flu” with pandemic flu in this 2005 article – and this blurb, also written in 2005.)
(There is an online version (same text, but easier to read than a PDF file) posted on the PAHO website. The entire issue is also there.
Spanish translation available
Traducción en Español: La gripe aviar: cómo comunicar el riesgo
Both Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files
(English version, 806 kB; Spanish version, 774 kB.) are located on this site.This article is categorized as:
-
Talking about “What Happened”: Post-Event Risk Communication
Published in ISHN (Industrial Safety and Hygiene News), May 2005, pp. 19–20, and June 2005, pp. 36, 38
A lot of what gets called risk communication actually deals less with future risk than with past events: “What happened?” This short two-part article offers ten pointers on talking about a recent accident, regulatory action, etc. It’s a start toward a post-event risk communication checklist.
Both Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) files are located on this site.
2004
-
Crisis Communication: Guidelines for Action
Produced by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax VA, 2004
This 166-minute video, produced by the American Industrial Hygiene Association in 2004, covers 25 crisis communication recommendations, focusing chiefly on the most difficult messaging challenges that even experienced crisis communicators may get wrong. AIHA stopped distributing the video in January 2012, so now it᾿s available for free on Vimeo (video) and on this site (audio). Unlike many of my videos, this one was professionally produced in a studio, with multiple cameras and an actual set – and it features not just me but also my wife and colleague Jody Lanard. Although some of the examples may be dated – there᾿s a lot of SARS and bird flu throughout the video – the recommendations themselves haven᾿t changed. A complete set of handouts to accompany this video is available.
1.3MB.
