In this week’s assigned reading, the chapters discussed risk communication, or, as defined in Environmental Communication, “any public or private communication that informs individuals about the existence, nature, form, severity, or acceptability of risks” (206). It is no surprise that there are different takes from risk when it comes to technical perspectives and laymen’s perspectives. It seems that those that are directly affected by something have a much stricter concept of risk than the officials determining the acceptable risk. I have notice these different perspectives while conducting interviews for our final presentation. I am researching the bottom coal ash and its use as skid control for roads. I have spoken with Geoff Buckley, a local professor who lives on a road covered with coal ash, and a representative from the Southeast Ohio division of the Ohio EPA. Buckley is obviously much more critical of the coal ash because it affects him directly, while Burce Goff, the official from the EPA, seemed a lot less concerned about the chemical properties of bottom coal ash. As stated within the texts, risk assessment can be very different between technical perspectives and cultural ones.
As I was reading about the parents of sick children approaching government officials about pollution and health at Love Canal and Friendly Hills, I was appalled by how little concern official showed – especially when officials wrote off the mass number of cancer cases in Friendly Hills as something “due to chance” (215). In many ways, I see risk communication being much more related to factors of environmental justice than to media studies. The presented cultural approaches to risk communication showed the many ways in which officials seem to reduce the importance of what affected people experience. I was particularly upset by the section on the assumptions of the “irrational individual.” While people may be more critical of their environments than of their own living habits (such as smoking for example), that is not enough to assume that everyone exaggerates what is happening around them.
I am very disappointed by the quality of media coverage on risk issues. I feel that because environmental science journalists are relying so heavily on experts and officials, they are receiving a very one-sided view of risk. When the views of those affected are portrayed, the stories tend to be much more sensational than informative. I think this is where communication needs to take a “balanced” approach when reporting the issues, and that is to say that journalists really need to get both sides of the story. Once both sides have been heard, then journalists need to refer to public records to weigh in the evidence. Thankfully, alternative forms of media are emerging because, as we discussed last week, many characteristics of how the mainstream media works really influences the way environmental topics are covered, and usually for the worst.
Discussion: What do the media need to do in order to communicate risk more clearly and accurately? In what ways do the different approaches to risk assessment conflict, and what can be done to achieve better understanding between officials and the public?
