Tweet
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2013 Jan;56(1):110-7. doi: 10.1007/s00103-012-1581-5.
[The pandemic of the experts in the mass media : How to create trust in public communication by acknowledging nescience and uncertainty].
[Article in German]
Stollorz V.
Source
-, Marienburger Str. 29, 50968, K?ln, Deutschland, stollorz@googlemail.com.
Abstract
The first influenza pandemic in the twenty-first century is an example of how public trust in expert recommendations can erode if prognostic ability of these experts is suddenly doubted in the mass media. A highly consonant pandemic alarm communicated through the mass media can later cause heightened resonance concerning the appropriateness of the same alarm. In this case a paradoxical effect can develop, in which the same media outlet first paints an overly risky picture of an unfolding pandemic only to later condemn this assessment as alarmist. Can such behavior be considered a defect of journalism? In this article I describe the circumstances under which such media dynamics and "hypes" without trust in expertise are more likely to develop: when there is nontransparent decision making; when uncertainty and nescience of expert judgments are not communicated transparently; when warnings and measures taken are not readily adapted to the evolving risk situation in reality. If these basic principles are recognized in future pandemic risk communication, long-term public trust in scientific expertise can be secured. In this way, despite a public health crisis, a long-lasting break in the credibility of sound science can be avoided.
PMID:
23275963
[PubMed - in process]
[The pandemic of the experts in the mass media : How to create trust in public communication by acknowledging nescience and uncertainty].
[Article in German]
Stollorz V.
Source
-, Marienburger Str. 29, 50968, K?ln, Deutschland, stollorz@googlemail.com.
Abstract
The first influenza pandemic in the twenty-first century is an example of how public trust in expert recommendations can erode if prognostic ability of these experts is suddenly doubted in the mass media. A highly consonant pandemic alarm communicated through the mass media can later cause heightened resonance concerning the appropriateness of the same alarm. In this case a paradoxical effect can develop, in which the same media outlet first paints an overly risky picture of an unfolding pandemic only to later condemn this assessment as alarmist. Can such behavior be considered a defect of journalism? In this article I describe the circumstances under which such media dynamics and "hypes" without trust in expertise are more likely to develop: when there is nontransparent decision making; when uncertainty and nescience of expert judgments are not communicated transparently; when warnings and measures taken are not readily adapted to the evolving risk situation in reality. If these basic principles are recognized in future pandemic risk communication, long-term public trust in scientific expertise can be secured. In this way, despite a public health crisis, a long-lasting break in the credibility of sound science can be avoided.
PMID:
23275963
[PubMed - in process]
