2.3 - Examples of Media Coverage Disparities
Enroll to start learning
You’ve not yet enrolled in this course. Please enroll for free to listen to audio lessons, classroom podcasts and take practice test.
Interactive Audio Lesson
Listen to a student-teacher conversation explaining the topic in a relatable way.
Understanding Risk Perception
🔒 Unlock Audio Lesson
Sign up and enroll to listen to this audio lesson
Today, we're discussing how people perceive risks from disasters, specifically distinguishing between high-probability, low-consequence events and low-probability, high-consequence events. For example, many think droughts are less risky even though they happen frequently.
Why do people perceive droughts as less risky despite them happening often?
Great question, Student_1! When an event occurs frequently and has low consequences, people tend to feel it is manageable and under control. This leads them to undervalue its risks.
What about rare events? Why do people think they are riskier?
Rare events, such as earthquakes, involve catastrophic outcomes that people cannot easily foresee, creating a sense of dread. This enhances their perceived risk.
Does personal experience influence this perception?
Absolutely! If someone has experienced a disaster, their familiarity makes them less likely to believe it’s a significant risk again—unless they see an increase in consequences.
To summarize, risk perception depends on probability, consequences, and personal experience. Familiarity can dampen perceived risks, whereas dread increases it.
Media Influence on Risk Perception
🔒 Unlock Audio Lesson
Sign up and enroll to listen to this audio lesson
Moving on, let’s discuss how media coverage shapes our understanding of risk. Why do you think some disasters get more media attention than others?
Maybe because they are more dramatic or have a higher number of victims?
Exactly, Student_4! The media often focuses on dramatic narratives, particularly if there's an identifiable cause of risk that people can blame, such as industrial accidents.
Can you give us an example?
Sure! The Chernobyl disaster received much more coverage compared to the Tangshan earthquake despite the latter resulting in many more deaths. This shows how media narratives can overshadow factual casualty numbers.
So, is it fair to say that media influence can distort our understanding of real risks?
That’s right! Media shapes our perceptions and sometimes can create fear about events that don’t happen often or may be less dangerous than they appear.
In summary, media coverage affects our risk perceptions significantly, often prioritizing sensationalism over statistical reality.
Factors in Media Reporting
🔒 Unlock Audio Lesson
Sign up and enroll to listen to this audio lesson
Let’s uncover the factors that determine what gets reported in the media. What do you think influences their decision?
Maybe the cultural context of the disaster?
Exactly, Student_2! Disasters in culturally distant or foreign locations often receive less coverage simply because the audience feels less connected.
What else affects media interest?
Factors like the exclusiveness of the coverage and political significance also play a huge role. If something is new or controversial, the media will likely cover it more than mundane events.
This sounds like a selective narrative!
Absolutely, Student_1! Such selective reporting can lead to skewed public perceptions of risk, complicating how we engage with and understand disasters.
To summarize, media coverage can be selective based on various factors, which can further shape our perceptions of risks.
Introduction & Overview
Read summaries of the section's main ideas at different levels of detail.
Quick Overview
Standard
The section examines the psychological factors influencing public perception of risk associated with various disasters, contrasting high probability but low consequence events, like droughts, with low probability but high consequence disasters, such as tsunamis. It highlights the role of media coverage in shaping these perceptions and the disparities in reporting based on the nature of the hazard.
Detailed
Detailed Summary
This section delves into the disparities in media coverage of different disasters and how it affects public perception of risk. It begins by comparing the probability and consequences of various disasters, noting that people often deem low-probability, high-consequence events—like the 2011 Japan earthquake—riskier than frequent disasters with minimal consequences, such as droughts.
Key Factors Influencing Risk Perception
- Context and Personal Control: The sensation of having control over risk influences how people perceive it. Higher personal control often correlates with lower perceived risk.
- Familiarity and Experience: Frequent exposure to certain disasters can lead to desensitization, resulting in lower perceived risk. Conversely, unfamiliarity raises perceived risk.
- Accountability and Blame: If risk is attributed to an identifiable source (e.g., municipal authorities), the perceived risk and emotional response increase.
Role of Media in Risk Transmission
The section emphasizes the significant role of media, which may not cover all disasters equally. For instance, the Chernobyl disaster received extensive media attention despite fewer fatalities compared to the Tangshan earthquake, which resulted in many deaths but received less coverage. This disparity is influenced by factors such as technological implications, cultural distance, and the novelty of incidents in media storytelling.
By understanding these elements, audiences can better interpret how message transmitters shape their perceptions of risk.
Audio Book
Dive deep into the subject with an immersive audiobook experience.
Perception of Risk in Disasters
Chapter 1 of 7
🔒 Unlock Audio Chapter
Sign up and enroll to access the full audio experience
Chapter Content
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?
Detailed Explanation
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.
Examples & Analogies
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.
High vs. Low Probability Disasters
Chapter 2 of 7
🔒 Unlock Audio Chapter
Sign up and enroll to access the full audio experience
Chapter Content
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.
Detailed Explanation
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.
Examples & Analogies
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.
Factors Influencing Risk Perception
Chapter 3 of 7
🔒 Unlock Audio Chapter
Sign up and enroll to access the full audio experience
Chapter Content
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.
Detailed Explanation
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.
Examples & Analogies
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.
Familiarity and Experience with Risks
Chapter 4 of 7
🔒 Unlock Audio Chapter
Sign up and enroll to access the full audio experience
Chapter Content
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.
Detailed Explanation
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.
Examples & Analogies
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.
Media's Role in Risk Communication
Chapter 5 of 7
🔒 Unlock Audio Chapter
Sign up and enroll to access the full audio experience
Chapter Content
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.
Detailed Explanation
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.
Examples & Analogies
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.
Disparities in Media Coverage
Chapter 6 of 7
🔒 Unlock Audio Chapter
Sign up and enroll to access the full audio experience
Chapter Content
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.
Detailed Explanation
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.
Examples & Analogies
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.
Factors Influencing Media Interest
Chapter 7 of 7
🔒 Unlock Audio Chapter
Sign up and enroll to access the full audio experience
Chapter Content
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.
Detailed Explanation
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.
Examples & Analogies
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.
Key Concepts
-
Risk and Consequences: Understanding how people evaluate the significance of risks based on their both probability and severity.
-
Media Influence: The media plays a crucial role in shaping how risks are reported and perceived by the public.
-
Perception of Control: Individuals often view risks in relation to their perceived ability to control the situation.
Examples & Applications
The disparity in media coverage between Chernobyl, which garnered extensive attention due to its technological implications, and the Tangshan earthquake, which had much higher fatalities but received minimal coverage, illustrates how media narratives can influence public perception.
When local residents often experience droughts, they may feel less apprehensive due to familiarity, while a community that seldom experiences earthquakes may feel heightened anxiety towards such rare occurrences.
Memory Aids
Interactive tools to help you remember key concepts
Rhymes
If it’s frequent but mild, we often feel mild, / But if it’s rare and dire, the fear can inspire!
Stories
Once there was a town that faced drought every year; the people became numb to its threat. But one day, a tremor shook the earth, and in fear, they ran. This showed how familiarity breeds comfort, while the unknown brings dread.
Memory Tools
To remember factors that influence risk: 'CDC - Control, Distance, Consequence.'
Acronyms
RUM - Risk Understanding Model
Remembering the relationship of risk perception with familiarity
blame
and dread.
Flash Cards
Glossary
- Risk Perception
The subjective judgment people make about the severity and likelihood of a risk.
- Cultural Distance
The perceived difference between one's culture and that of another group, which can affect empathy and concern for events in distant areas.
- Dread
An emotion characterized by fear or apprehension, often associated with rare, catastrophic events.
- Familiarity
The state of being acquainted with or accustomed to a particular risk or event.
Reference links
Supplementary resources to enhance your learning experience.