A claim from an organization that it is doing “everything possible” to “ensure” that its operations are “safe” is always false – empty-headed at best, intentionally dishonest at worst.
I’m currently working with an outrage management issue and would to ask you what you would do. The majority of people in a local community I am working with would like us to do a fuel reduction burn to reduce the fuel hazards surrounding their township. There are a small group of “fanatics” that are quite passionate about stopping the burning in this space.
I am familiar with the “delivering bad news” pointers that are already here on your website. But I was wondering about “bad news” when it is not about hazard – for example when a decision is made to not implement the community’s desires for a local building to be in a certain spot (for various reasons, some of which are very good, others of which aren’t!).
It’s a basic tenet of risk perception that people tend to take a risk seriously or shrug it off mostly in response to factors like familiarity, control, trust, dread, and responsiveness – factors I have labeled collectively the “outrage factors.”
This past April, a retired teacher posted this comment on risk communication expert Peter Sandman’s Guestbook on his web site www.psandman.com/gst2011.htm#children.
This blog comes from the Guestbook discussion board on risk communication expert Dr. Peter Sandman's website www.psandman.com and is reprinted here with Dr. Sandman's permission.
