BEST PRACTICES
Ten Best Practices for
Communication, Continuity
During Mega-Disasters
By STEPHANIE WEHRHEIM
The recent nuclear crisis in Japan, triggered by an earth- quake and complicated by the resulting tsunami, exempli- fies the need for effective risk and crisis communication before, during, and after such an event. To cope with a disaster of this magnitude, a distrustful and resistant
public needs more than an explanation of potential health and
safety risks. It needs risk communication that indicates a solid
understanding of stakeholders’ in-crisis and post-crisis needs. The
public needs a multi-component strategy that addresses its concerns, establishes trust, and alleviates fear and the anger directed
at the person or organization, as well as the government agency it
considers responsible. The public also needs to be encouraged to
participate in risk-reduction activities and in the decision-making
process.
These and other challenges and opportunities must be considered when assessing the threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences
of a high-stress and high-concern event and the implications for
communications to affected communities and national audiences.
To do that, the Washington, D.C. Chapter of the Association of
Continuity Planners (ACP) hosted an expert panel in April 2011
in McLean, Va. Panelists included Tim Tinker, DrPH, a senior
associate who leads Booz Allen’s Center for Risk and Crisis
Communication; Marko Moscovitch, Ph.D., director of the Health
Physics Graduate Program at Georgetown University; and Tony
Dorsey, manager of media relations, news, and information for
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials.
Interactive exercises, role plays, and a scenario-based exercise helped participants to learn and apply best practices for communicating science, engaging the media, and delivering effective
communication in the aftermath of catastrophic events. From the
expert panel discussion best practices emerged in three major
communication categories: 1) communicating scientific and technical information; 2) understanding media needs and frustrations;
and 3) delivering effective messages.
Communicating Scientific
and Technical Information
Dr. Marko Moscovitch is often a scientific subject
matter expert called on by reporters during times of
crises. Most recently he was asked to comment on
Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant
disaster and offered three best practices for communicating
information to the public in such a situation.
SIMPLIFY THE COMPLEX AND MAKE THE UNFAMILIAR FAMILIAR The general public can understand even the most complex
concepts if they are explained the right way. Consider the concept of
millisievert. In scientific jargon, it is one of the units used to express
the radiation quantity “dose equivalent.” This quantity is the energy
per unit mass multiplied by a weighting factor that takes into account
the different biological effects on an organism of the various radiation
forms such as alpha, beta, and so forth. Clearly, this is not a simple
concept to convey. But explain how many millisieverts people are
exposed to in their daily lives to better understand what different
levels of exposure mean in terms of risk. For example, the level of
radiation coming from the Fukushima plant in some instances was
10 millisieverts, but a pediatric CT scan delivers 25 millisieverts, a
mammogram exposes the recipient to 2 millisieverts, a round-trip
flight from New York to London exposes the traveler to 1 millisievert,
and living in the Washington, D.C. area exposes inhabitants to 3
millisieverts of radiation in one year. Equally effective for simplifying
complex information is to make the unfamiliar familiar. For example,
Dr. Moscovitch cited a New York Times reporter who had interviewed
several scientists. When she asked them a question about radiation
levels in spinach around the Fukushima site, the scientists answered
with facts about natural radioactivity in bananas to make the point that
we are always exposed to radiation in our daily life.
UNDERSTAND THE PUBLIC’S PERCEPTIONS OF RISK The public is already stressed, so it is very important to mitigate
escalating fears and concerns. Do not make extreme comments;
instead, be factual and empathic in explaining complex risks.
BE PROACTIVE AND HARNESS THE POWER OF VISUALS Never underestimate the public’s ability to comprehend the nature,
form, and severity in a crisis situation. While showing meaningless
or irrelevant pictures without context or adequate explanation will not
help you communicate your points, using strong visuals to enhance
your spokesperson’s credibility will. For example, when conducting
broadcast interviews during the Japan catastrophe, Dr. Moscovitch
was filmed in his lab, wearing his lab coat and explaining and
demonstrating how scientific instruments were used in the field.
Understanding the
Media’s Needs and Frustrations
Tony Dorsey, an Emmy-award winning journalist in
his previous career, provided a reporter’s perspective
on what reporters will expect from public officials
during a catastrophic event. He stressed that building a trusting relationship with reporters prior to the catastrophe
is vital. Risk communicators and reporters have a symbiotic relationship and need one another to disseminate necessary information to the public – especially during a crisis.
ANTICIPATE, RESPOND TO WHAT REPORTERS WANT TO KNOW In the first few minutes and hours of a crisis, reporters generally
want to know the “5WsH” – who, what, where, when, why, and how
about the event. Begin by sharing information about the names of the
agencies and the key individuals, including press contacts, involved
in the emergency response. During the Japan crisis, reporters wanted
to know the number of dead and injured; how many people have or
will be evacuated; and what the danger is to humans beginning at
