Constructing reality

Printrnediastoriesarisingfromthreeperreived risks to human health and safety are analyzed in the context of risk communication theory. Relationships between public, regulatory and scientific communities are examined, and the challenges to developing accurate and comprehensive risk messages are explonxi. The study confirms the idea that uncertainty in scientific assessments is oiten translated into apprehension in the public arena. 1Author to whom cornqondence should be addressed. 2 Department of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., NIG 2W1, (519) 824420 x4358, (519) S70 3928 (home). 3 Director, Centre for Society, Technology and Values, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont. N2L 3G1. 4 Department of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., NIG 2W1. Permission to mpy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that thecopiesarenot madeordistibr.dedfor directcommeraaladvantage, theACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republfsh, requiree a fee and/or specific permission. o 1993ACM o-89791-630-l/93/oolo@ll $1.50 Introduction Documents am intended to convey meanin& to impart some message or knowledge. However they often fail, cloaking the message behind a veil of technical competence or untested assumptions. By examinhg how messages about technological risk are interpreted and transmitted through the filter of ~t@ia,d&~mofdmm&a@titi@& into message development and delivery, Nelkin(1987)hasnoted thatpublicunderstandingof science and technology is critical in a society increasingly aft%cted by the impact of technological change, one in which policy decisionsare determined inlargepartby technical expertise. Yetinheranalysis of science purnalism in the print media, she has concluded that imagery often replaces content, with Iittlediscussionofthescientific questionsbeingposed, that isauesarecoverwi asa series of dramatic events, that different message providera are intensely competitive with one another, and that scientists themselves are increasingly seeking favorable press coverage as a means to enhanm research support. Sckmcehasbecomep olitics,and politicshasbecome a series of media events and photo ops. The use of metaphors in science writing is particularlyimportant intheexplanationof technical detail, to define experience, to evoke shared meanings and to allow individuals to construct elaborate concepts about public issues and events. Nelkin has shown that themetaphomused bysciencewriters in general hascycledoverthe past fivedecades, with the notion Geffing in Touch—Sfuyhg inTouch 241 Douglas A PowelL Norman i?.Bull, and Mansel W. Grifliih of pmgrws resurrected as innovation, and the celebration of technology present once again as high technology promotion. Public communication about issues of technological risk often involves messages from diverse individuals or communities-including but not limited to representatives from industry, academic, government, advocacy and public cornmuniti+that am trandatedand synthesized byvariousmediaoutlets to aeate a newsworthy story. At each step, rnessa~ providersandpurnalistsaxeframinga specificevent using their own value systems and constraints. Stories that appear in print media may then be md by individual mernbm of many publics, again with each interpreting the information using the filters of experience and expectation in the way that makes the most sense to a particular individual. Feedback loops based on responses may alter future message conten~ Overtime, a technological risk rnaybecome viewed as a reality, with the public often exercising its will through government (in)action or (nonregulation, whether the specific risk involves video display terminals, nuclear energy, chemical emissions or genetically+ngineered food. In this study, print media coverage of three recent, newsworthy events is analyzed and compared us ing the framework of established risk communication theory to provide insights into message development, the purnalistic process, political decision-making and the ambivalent nature of wcietal interactions with technology. First, North American printmdacoverage ofoutlmaksof Eschenchia coli 0157M7 in the food supply+ko known as hamburger disease--from January 1993 to the present are analyzed in terms of the metaphors employed, the messages of individual players in these outbreaks and how they are translated into public perception, and the resulting political action. Second, North American print media coverage of the potential risks involved with the commercial availability of genetically-engineered food and food products from 1992 to the present is analyzed in a similar manner. Finally, these national storiesarecontrasted with local coverage of a risk to human health and safety, the outbreak of a parasite, ayptosporidiurn, in the Kitchener, Ontario, water supply in the spring of 1993. h introduction to risk communication and ihe perception of risk Risk cornmutication, the science of understanding scientific and technological risk and how it is communicated within a socio-politiczd structure, is a relatively new scientific endeavor, dating back to StarFs 1%9 paper which attempted to offer a scientific basis for thresholds of risk which would be accepted bythepublic. Aspubiicconcerns regarding nuclear power gained prominence in the 1970s, investigators tried to establish general principles of public risk accqtability, usually based on mortality statistics. Such an approach was uniformIy unsuccessful. In the 1980s, several groups developed models that incorporated the value systems of individuals, peer groupsandwcietiesinto riskcommunication theory Wlek and Stallen, 1981; Buglas, 1986; SIovic, 1987) resulting in broad agreement that risks am viewed according to their perceived heat to familiar social relationships and practices, and not simply by numbers alone. According to a US National Research Counal committee on risk pemeption and communication (1989), risk communication is now defined as, “An interactive process of exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups and institutions. It involves multiple messages about the nat-me of risk and other messages, not strictly about risk, that express concerns, opinions, or n+ctions to risk messages or to legal and institutional arrangements for risk management.” In essence, risk communication must be treated as a reciprocal pr ocess-not simply those with a vested interest in a message developing mom effective techniques to sell their side of the story. A body of knowledge has been created over the past decade which helps to understand how the public perceives risk, how the media translates this information, and how government, industry and other organizations can better relate risk information over a wide range of disciplines. This approach to mmmunicating technological risk has been successfully applied in a nmber of sectors, especially in the chemid industry (CoveUo, et al. 1988).