RISK COMMUNICATION versus POLITICAL BROADCASTS
Politicians are at a distinct disadvantage as risk communicators, as public attitude research shows that they are not always trusted, as they may carry too much “excess baggage” from their political careers and most communities in industrialised countries, are sceptical to political input. Creating trust and empathy detached from the display of emotions and reaching out cannot be overestimated.
The level of patronising the public and key responders should be carefully measured and not over-emphasised, especially mentioning people by name rather than organisations. Not all in the organisation can be named, and those who are intentionally or inadvertently left out of the list might feel underrated and take umbrage.
Only key and leading Ministries in the response require Risk Communication space, rather than the “cast of thousands”. In the COVID-19 pandemic the key elements are health and epidemiology (other ministries working in support). The leading Ministries can and will change during different phases of the emergency. All other issues can be briefly mentioned by the President of the Panel, explaining that there is already a system in place and reference made to the relevant on-line source (HMGoG Website which is functional, user friendly and very informative), which interested parties would have to visit anyway, to obtain all additional information (forms; claims procedure, financial support, advise on BEAT COVID-19, CELAC etc).
The speaker should stay focused on the “message” and avoid continuously reading from iPads or laptops. These devices should only be used to recap on the story line and to quote facts and figures. The continuous reading from iPads and Laptops distracts eye contact between the speaker and the viewers, taking the latter out of the equation. Not to mention the distractions caused by tapping into mobile phone devices during the broadcast.
Command and Coordination
The public is not in the least interested in the ‘coordination’ structures in place, together with the respective reporting lines in the emergency and who does what, where, when and how. These are in-house coordinating mechanisms and are of no value in relation to the provision of risk information to the general public. I’ve deliberately used the word ‘coordination’ as there is no room for the term ‘command’ in civil emergencies. Command is a military or Category I Responder (Fire & Rescue; Police; Borders and Coast Guards; Customs; Ambulance Service etc) term, used under the Incident Command System. This can be incorporated in a single or multi-agency response (usually during a short-term sudden onset emergency the - Major Accident Procedure) and bolted on as a cluster but not holistic in the overall National Coordination Strategy.
In the Military, Fire & Rescue Service and other uniformed Category I responders, one gives the order “left turn” and everyone turns left. In civil emergencies with multi agency responders and volunteers, coordination is by consensus, where clear guidance; well defined objectives; effective negotiation; consensus-building; adaptation of functional roles and responsibilities; resource allocation; information sharing and strategic planning, culminate in the success of the response. A far cry from the precise and textbook approach employed by the military.
Mixed Messages
As mentioned above, a clear distinction must be made in separating key lifesaving/protection messages, from general administration messages under the early recovery concept. There must exist a distinct separation between the ‘need to know and nice to know’. I spoke about the general mistrust; the general public has of politicians and how much they politicians have to strive, to maintain trust and transparency in Risk Communication during the emergency. Key to this, is an absolute avoidance of giving any message a political overtone. All the trust and transparency established can be undone very quickly by phrases like “In our manifesto”, “During the last elections”, “My Party” and other similar expressions, this will create rejection by the general public and seen as trying to get a political message across under the radar.
Environmental or other initiatives not directly connected with the immediate emergency phase should not form part of Risk Communication.
This will raise misgivings and the general public could be forgiven for thinking, that the Government is trying to take advantage of a critical time to enhance their political agenda. This will jeopardise and derail all the good work and effort invested in building that much needed trust and transparency, especially if these comments are made towards the end of a series of Risk Communications broadcast, when little viewing time is left to commence damage control measures to recover lost ground.
02-06-2020 PANORAMAdailyGIBRALTAR
