Reaction blog #1

Lundgren and McMakin (2004) divided “risk communication along with functional lines, distinguishing between care communication, consensus communication, and crisis communication” (p. 4). They also mentioned, “Crisis communication is risk communication in the face of extreme, sudden danger-an accident at an industrial plant, the impending break in an earthen dam, the outbreak of a deadly disease” (p. 6). On the other hand, according to Dr. Robinson’s lecture, she defined risk communication as “the exchange of information among interested parties about the nature, magnitude, significance, or control of a risk” (Covello, 1992), and crisis communication as “grounded in the effort to manage public perceptions of an event so that harm is reduced for both the organization and stakeholders” (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulner, 2003). After I’ve been majoring in public relations, the terms, crisis communication and risk communication, became to be familiar to me. However, I haven’t thought of the difference between two terms before. In my understanding, the crisis communication is the management function in public relations perspective, considering the relationship between public and organization significantly, and related to managerial role of public relations. Risk communication is the technical and practical function to make the public aware the risk before and after the risk as one-way, and related to the technician role of public relations.
As the organizational constraints for the communicator in risk communication, Lundgren and McMakin (2004) indicated the inadequate resources, management apathy or hostility, potential roles dichotomy, difficult review and approval procedures, corporate protection requirements, conflicting organizational requirements, and insufficient information to adequately plan and set schedules. Among those organizational constraints, I regard the management apathy or hostility would be the most fatal for the effective risk communication because the lack of support from the management would not give the possibility of the effective risk communication at all. The other constraints would bring about the difficulty of effective risk communication. This is in the same context with the argument that public relations should be in the dominant coalition for the effective communication. I also believe whether the public relations is in the part of dominant coalition or not affects the role of public relations significantly different. If the public relations for the risk communication is in the part of dominant coalition, the role of communication would be increased to the various programs such as the programs involved with the community and corporate responsibility as an active role. However, if the risk communication suffers from the lack of support from the dominant coalition, the risk communication would have the limitation and only play rather the passive role than proactive role.
In Lundgren and McMakin’s (2004), the table of the reasons the audience can be hostile in p. 60 shows easily how the various factors such as catastrophic potential, level of familiarity, level of understanding, and voluntariness affect the hostility more and less. One of the factors that I’d like to discuss is the amount of media attention. The table shows that the highly popularized media attention makes the audience more hostile and seldom mentioned media attention makes the audience less hostile. I do not agree with this analysis. I think highly popularized media attention depends on the size and the seriousness of the risk. If the highly popularized media attention makes the audience more hostile than the seldom mentioned media attention, the media relations during the risk would not be needed. When there is the serious risk, the heavy media coverage helps the audience understand the risk accurately, estimate the situation fully, and prepare the possible risks in the future.
In Lundgren and McMakin’s (2004) principles of risk communication, I understood that to know the audience and the risk situation is the most fundamental principle of risk communication. In order to know the audience and the risk situation fully, the thorough research and planning in advance are essential. Academic research would be helpful for the practitioners in doing research and planning the program. However, I do not think that many practitioners in real world have chances to read academic journals for their practice. As a doctoral student and the researcher, this is my strong hope that the academic research is widely valued by the practitioners in real world and helpful for their effective practice.