2. Transmitting Risk Information

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 highlights how the perception of risk is influenced by the casualties associated with an event. When people hear about a significant number of casualties, they are more inclined to accept information about the risks involved. Moreover, the credibility of the message sender plays a crucial role. If the information comes from a trusted source, people are more likely to consider it serious.

Imagine hearing about a plane crash where many lives were lost; this news would grab headlines, making you more aware of the risks involved in flying. Conversely, if a small accident occurred with few injuries, it might not garner the same attention. Trusting the news source also matters—if you hear it from a reputable news outlet, you're more likely to believe the risks.

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 portion discusses how the likelihood of an event (probability) and its potential impact (consequences) affect people's risk assessment. High probability events like droughts, which occur frequently but have lower consequences, are perceived as less risky than low probability events like significant earthquakes that have devastating consequences when they do occur.

Consider the difference between a drought that affects farming every few years and a rare but catastrophic earthquake that can destroy entire cities. People might feel that dealing with droughts is part of normal life, hence they see less risk in it compared to a rare earthquake that can cause massive destruction.

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.

The ability to control or influence a situation affects risk perception. If individuals feel they have control over a risk, such as taking precautions to avoid disasters, they may view it as less threatening. Familiarity with a risk, such as regular exposure to floods, can also diminish fear since people may believe they can manage it.

Think of it as driving in your hometown where you know all the roads and potential hazards; you feel confident and in control. However, driving in an unfamiliar city with heavy traffic can feel more stressful and risky because of the lack of control and familiarity.

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.

Mass media serves as a crucial transmitter of risk information, collecting data from various sources and interpreting its seriousness. They gather information from eyewitness reports, journal articles, and studies. How they present this information can greatly influence public perception of risk, highlighting the importance of their role in risk communication.

Consider a news report on a natural disaster. If the media emphasizes the damage and emotional stories of victims, viewers are more likely to perceive the event as severe. Alternatively, a report that focuses on recovery efforts might downplay the perceived risk.

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.

This chunk discusses several factors that influence how the media covers risk information. Technological risks are more likely to receive coverage if there's someone or something that can be blamed, compared to natural disasters. The novelty of the event, cultural distance, and ongoing conflicts also contribute to whether an event is covered extensively.

For instance, a factory explosion that results in toxic exposure might receive more media attention than a flood, especially if it is revealed that safety regulations were ignored. The public and media are drawn to the story where they can point fingers at causes and consequences.

--