4 details you should include in news stories about risks to public health and safety – The Journalist’s Resource

Report on Media Communication Strategies for Public Health and Safety Risks in Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Effective communication of risks to public health and safety is a critical component in achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Inaccurate or incomplete reporting can undermine public trust, create unnecessary fear, and hinder progress towards key global targets, particularly those related to health, environmental safety, and institutional integrity. This report outlines key principles for responsible risk journalism, emphasizing the need for context and precision to support informed public decision-making and advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Core Recommendations for Risk Reporting

Based on insights from experts in risk analysis and communication, four primary recommendations are identified to enhance the quality and impact of media reports on public health and safety threats. Adherence to these guidelines directly supports the achievement of multiple SDGs.

1. Identify and Specify At-Risk Populations

   Reporting must clearly delineate which demographic or social groups are most vulnerable to a specific risk. This practice is fundamental to addressing inequalities and ensuring public health initiatives are equitable, directly supporting SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

   • Vulnerability Factors: Reports should explain why certain groups face elevated risks. This includes factors such as age, pre-existing health conditions, socioeconomic status, or occupational exposure. For instance, when reporting on air pollution, it is crucial to note the heightened vulnerability of children, the elderly, and individuals with respiratory conditions.
   • Contextual Explanation: Journalists should provide context for disparities in risk. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, explaining how systemic inequities and exposure in essential jobs contributed to higher severity in certain communities was vital for a complete public understanding, aligning with the goal of reducing inequality.

2. Provide Quantitative and Comparative Data

   To prevent misperception and public anxiety, risks should be quantified and contextualized. Using numerical estimates and comparisons helps the public gauge the actual prevalence of a threat, which is essential for promoting rational responses and supports SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by ensuring public access to reliable information.

   • Numerical Clarity: Vague terms like “rare” or “common” should be substantiated with specific numbers (e.g., “1 in 1 million”). This provides a precise scale for the audience to understand the likelihood of an event.
   • Statistical Comparison: When reporting on incidents such as aviation accidents, it is imperative to include comparative data showing that air travel is statistically safer than road travel. This prevents disproportionate fear and informs decisions related to achieving safe and sustainable transport systems under SDG 11.

3. Detail Hazardous Exposure Levels

   For risks involving substances such as environmental contaminants, chemicals, or pharmaceuticals, reporting must specify the dosage and duration of exposure considered harmful. This level of detail is critical for public health education and environmental protection, contributing to SDG 3 and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

   • Dose-Response Relationship: Reports should clarify that the level of harm is often dependent on the amount and duration of exposure. For example, the risk associated with lead exposure is significantly higher for developing children than for adults, and chronic exposure to asbestos poses a greater threat than occasional contact.
   • Safety Thresholds: Communicating quantities that are generally considered safe helps to dispel misinformation and provides a balanced perspective. This information empowers individuals to make safer choices regarding their environment and consumption habits.

4. Incorporate Both Relative and Absolute Risk Metrics

   Presenting risk data comprehensively requires the inclusion of both relative and absolute risk. Relying solely on relative risk can exaggerate or misrepresent the true magnitude of a threat, while providing absolute risk offers a more complete and accurate picture, thereby supporting the SDG 3 target of ensuring healthy lives.

   • Absolute Risk for Magnitude: Absolute risk indicates the overall probability of an event occurring. For example, stating that a university saw a 70% increase in assault reports is incomplete without providing the absolute numbers (e.g., an increase from 3 to 5 incidents), which frames the actual scale of the issue.
   • Comparative Groups: When discussing risks associated with lifestyle choices, such as diet, reports should compare outcomes between the exposed and unexposed groups. Stating that 33 out of 100 people who eat a certain food develop a condition is more meaningful when compared to the 12 out of 100 people who develop the condition without eating the food. This clarifies the actual risk attributable to the behavior.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on risk reporting in journalism connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by emphasizing the importance of accurate, contextualized information for public health, safety, and equity.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: This is the most prominent SDG, as the article’s central theme is the communication of risks to public health. It discusses numerous health-related topics, including diseases (COVID-19), environmental health threats (lead, air pollution), drug side effects, and the impact of foods on health.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article directly addresses this goal by highlighting how risks disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and the need for journalism to explain these disparities. It points out that factors like age, race, pre-existing health conditions, and systemic inequities determine vulnerability.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The discussion of environmental contaminants like lead in drinking water and playground dirt, air pollution, and the impact of extreme weather relates to creating safe, resilient, and sustainable living environments for all.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article’s core argument about the role of journalism in providing the public with accessible, reliable, and complete information directly supports the goal of building effective and accountable institutions and ensuring public access to information.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, the following specific SDG targets are relevant:

1. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.9: “By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The article explicitly mentions risks from environmental contaminants such as “lead, a toxic metal sometimes found in drinking water, playground dirt and food,” as well as asbestos and air pollution, which directly aligns with this target.
   • Target 3.d: “Strengthen the capacity of all countries… for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.” The entire article is a guide on improving risk communication, which is a fundamental component of risk reduction and management. The example of reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the need for clear information to manage global health crises.
2. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The article advocates for reporting that explains “who is at risk and who is most at risk.” It provides examples of how teenagers are at higher risk for car crashes, how children are more vulnerable to lead, and how “older adults, racial and ethnic minorities, and people with certain health conditions were more likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19,” often due to “systemic inequities.” This detailed reporting empowers all groups by providing them with relevant information.
3. Under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities):
   • Target 11.5: “By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected… caused by disasters, including water-related disasters…” The mention of reporting on “extreme weather” connects to this target, as effective communication is crucial for mitigating the impact of climate-related disasters on communities.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.10: “Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms…” The article’s central thesis is that journalists must provide the public with complete and understandable information to allow individuals to “make the healthiest choice for them and their circumstances.” By advocating against “incomplete risk reporting,” it directly promotes meaningful public access to information, which is a cornerstone of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official UN indicators, but it strongly implies a set of qualitative and quantitative indicators for measuring the quality of risk communication, which in turn measures progress towards the targets.

• For Target 3.d and 16.10: The article’s four main recommendations can be framed as indicators of effective risk communication.
  • Indicator: Use of disaggregated data in risk reporting. The article insists that reports must “Explain who is at risk and who is most at risk,” citing examples like disaggregating car crash data by age or COVID-19 risk by health status and race.
  • Indicator: Inclusion of numerical estimates and prevalence rates. The article suggests measuring whether reports “Use numerical estimates to convey how rare or common the risk is,” moving beyond ambiguous words like “rare” to specific figures like “1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1 million.”
  • Indicator: Reporting on exposure levels and dosage. For risks involving substances, an implied indicator is whether a report “note[s] the amount that is considered hazardous and the amount generally considered safe.”
  • Indicator: Inclusion of both absolute and relative risk data. The article explicitly states that progress can be measured by whether news stories “Include data on both relative and absolute risk” to avoid misleading the public, as relative risk alone “can be misleading.”
• For Target 3.9 and 10.2: The article implies that progress can be measured by tracking health outcomes in relation to information quality.
  • Indicator: Number of illnesses and deaths attributable to specific environmental hazards (e.g., lead, air pollution), with data disaggregated by vulnerable groups (e.g., children, older adults). The article’s focus on how lead is “bad for little kids because their brains are still developing” implies the need for such specific tracking.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: journalistsresource.org