2.2. Attractiveness of Risk Information to Transmitters

But when we are saying that, that much of casualty happened people are more likely to believe the information, ready to accept that this is risky. Importance of message is also very important, okay. Who is sending these informations to them and how important it is?

This chunk discusses how the amount of casualties influences people's belief in the risk information. When significant casualties occur, people are quicker to trust and recognize the information as valid or risky. The source of the information is also critical because it can affect how seriously the audience takes the message. Essentially, the credibility of the messenger alongside the seriousness of the situation contributes greatly to how risk information is perceived.

Consider news reports about a deadly disease outbreak. If the report states that thousands have been infected or affected, people are likely to take it seriously, especially if it comes from trusted health organizations like the CDC. Conversely, if similar news comes from an unreliable source, people might dismiss it, illustrating the importance of both the message's content and its source.

Another one the catastrophic potentials, how people consider the catastrophic potentials in order to judge the risk. When we are saying high probability, low consequence of disasters like you can say the drought compared to low probability high consequences like the 2011 Japan earthquake and Tsunami.

This section explains how people assess risks based on their probability and potential consequences. High-probability events like droughts, which occur frequently but with lower consequences, are often seen as less risky. In contrast, low-probability events, such as the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami, have high consequences and are therefore perceived as more dangerous. The public's assessment balances these two factors to determine perceived risk.

Think about driving a car versus flying in an airplane. Car accidents happen more frequently than plane crashes, but the consequences of a plane crash are often far worse. Many people see driving as a regular part of life and accept its risks, while they may have a heightened sense of danger about flying, even though statistically, it's safer.

Also, the context, the risk situation, the perception of dread having personal control, that I can control the risk over the magnitude and probability, so how it will happen or what extended to happen, I have some control or not.

This chunk mentions that personal control over risks can significantly affect how we perceive them. When people feel they can influence a situation, they often view it as less risky. Familiarity with a risk can also lower perceived danger; if people routinely face a risk (like weather-related events), they may become desensitized and view it as less threatening.

For instance, someone who drives in a rainstorm regularly may feel they have enough experience and control not to worry too much, viewing it as a manageable risk. In contrast, someone who rarely drives in such conditions might feel completely overwhelmed and view it as extremely dangerous, highlighting the role of personal experience and perceived control.

Now, the transmitter of risk information, that how the sender is that the transmitter is collecting the informations from the senders and the perceived seriousness of the risk okay.

This part talks about the important role of information transmitters—such as the media, public institutions, and opinion leaders—in how risk information is communicated. They gather data, interpret it, and convey it to the public, influencing how seriously those risks are perceived. Transmitters help shape public understanding of risk by selecting which information to highlight and how to present it.

Consider a breaking news story about a natural disaster. News outlets can choose which details to emphasize—like the number of evacuations versus the extent of damage—which can significantly shape public perception. If they focus on dramatic visuals and extensive coverage, the public may view the disaster as more significant and risky than if they report it in a more subdued manner.

So, factors that determine transmitter attractiveness to pass report risk informations or risk news is, if it is technologically induced hazard then compared to natural hazards they will report more.

This chunk explores what makes risk information attractive for transmission. Transmitters are more likely to report on technologically induced risks rather than natural ones, especially if there is someone to blame. Cultural distance from the event and the uniqueness of the incident also play a role in how stories are selected for coverage. Events that occur in foreign places, or those that stir public emotion or conflict, tend to receive more attention.

For example, a factory explosion might attract significant media coverage because it highlights human error and safety concerns, whereas a minor earthquake in a remote area might go unnoticed despite causing damage. The desire to report issues that evoke emotional responses or have clear accountability often drives what is deemed 'newsworthy.'

--