The Deepwater Horizon disaster is mostly a crisis – that is, a situation where hazard and outrage are both high – where people are rightly upset. It has elements of other kinds of risk communication. There is some unjustified outrage to manage (such as false or misleading accusations) and there are some “precaution advocacy” tasks to be done (such as convincing spill responders to protect themselves properly). But crisis communication is the main risk communication paradigm here.
In a crisis situation the principal communication task is to communicate honestly about the situation and help people bear their justified distress. Premature, dishonest, or disingenuous over-reassurance is a cardinal crisis communication sin. So is cavalier, unempathic dismissiveness.
Because crises are virtually always evolving, uncertain situations, sources should err on the alarming side. Thus BP’s Tony Hayward was very, very wrong to say on May 19 that “the environmental impact of this disaster is likely to have been very, very modest.” He did a much better job over the past several days in predicting that top kill had only a 60–70% chance of success, and in warning that early signs of what looked like success might well turn out misleading. plus information: Artigo completo
"Take into account that great love and great achievements involve great risk."
