2.3. Examples of Media Coverage Disparities

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 emphasizes that the extent of casualties in a disaster influences how seriously people perceive the risk of that disaster. In simple terms, if a lot of people are injured or killed, individuals are more likely to acknowledge that the situation is dangerous. Additionally, who communicates this information and the relevance of the source matters greatly. The way we perceive risk can depend on various factors, including the credibility of the messenger.

Think about a devastating earthquake reported on the news. If the news highlights that many people were hurt or killed, viewers are more inclined to think of earthquakes as a significant danger. Conversely, if a lesser-known, less impactful disaster occurs but is reported by a trusted authority, people might still take it seriously.

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. Which one you think people considered more risky, accept as risk.

This chunk discusses how people assess risk by comparing disasters with different probabilities and consequences. For instance, droughts are seen as high probability events that occur frequently but have relatively low immediate consequences. On the other hand, events like the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami have a low probability of occurrence but can lead to catastrophic results. In general, people tend to view disasters with dire consequences, even if they are rare, as more dangerous compared to frequent but low-impact events.

Imagine someone who lives in an area with frequent but mild floods versus someone who lives near a fault line where earthquakes rarely happen. Even though the floods happen often, the person experiencing them may think, 'They're nothing compared to the potential devastation from a major earthquake.' Thus, they view the earthquake risk as greater, despite its rarity.

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 highlights how several factors, including the context of a situation and personal feelings of control, affect risk perception. If individuals feel they have some ability to manage or control the risk, they are less likely to view it as serious. The level of dread associated with the risk also plays a role—higher levels of dread can lead to a greater perception of danger.

Consider someone who has learned to use a fire extinguisher; they may feel more in control during a small fire situation and therefore judge the risk as lower compared to someone who feels helpless and panics when facing the same scenario. This sense of personal control can significantly affect how they perceive the risk.

This is one variable, another variable is the familiarity, if I have experienced that one or if I am experiencing that and disasters and equitable sharing that who is benefit and who is a risk.

This chunk discusses how familiarity with a certain type of risk influences how people perceive that risk. If a person has been through a particular disaster before or frequently encounters a minor version of it, they may underestimate its severity. Additionally, questions about fairness and who benefits from a disaster further complicate risk perception.

For example, a community that has endured several mild hurricanes may become desensitized and less fearful of future hurricanes, believing they can handle it and that damages will be minimal. This familiarity can create a false sense of security and lead to a dangerous underestimation of genuine risk.

So, 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. Now, this mass media public institutions and opinion groups and they are collecting data from the senders through journal articles from report, eyewitness okay and they are collecting and then they are passing it to the receivers.

This chunk highlights the role of media as a transmitter of risk information. The media collects various forms of information (like news reports, articles, and eyewitness accounts) and then communicates these to the public. The perception of the risk's seriousness largely depends on how the media interprets and presents that information.

When a major disaster occurs, different news outlets might report varying levels of urgency and detail, affecting public perception. If a news channel emphasizes the severity of an event, it can make individuals feel more concerned and aware of the risk compared to if another channel downplays the incident's seriousness.

Like, all disasters are not reported by the mass media, the nature and magnitude of the original hazards are only minor interest for most of the transmitter, most of the mass media. Do you think that volume of news that depends on number of victims? No! Number of victims and volume of news that they have no correlations.

This chunk points out that not all disasters receive equal media coverage. The media often prioritizes certain disasters based on factors like their severity or uniqueness, rather than strictly on the number of victims. It's a common misconception that more victims automatically mean more news coverage.

Consider two disasters: one a minor earthquake that hurt a few dozen people, and another a train derailment that injured less people but was sensationalized. The train derailment might receive far more media attention due to the dramatic visuals and potential for blame, even if the earthquake caused more harm overall.

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 possibility to blame someone that it is this risk, people are at risk because of someone then they are more interested.

This chunk examines what drives the media's interest in reporting on particular risks. Certain factors make disasters newsworthy, such as the ability to blame a person or entity for the occurrence. Generally, the media tends to focus more on incidents that have technological origins (like industrial accidents) compared to natural disasters simply because of the potential for assigning blame and stirring public interest.

If a factory explosion occurs due to negligence, the media will likely cover it extensively because there is a clear entity to hold responsible. In contrast, a natural event like a flood may receive less coverage despite potentially causing more damage, as it is harder to assign blame.

--