Reporting Risk Checklist
Research carried out by BBC journalists and the Kings Fund indicated concern amongst scientific experts about the potential of media coverage to distort risk and create disproportionate fear. Using the following checklist can help ensure the context is clear and avoid distortion of the risk.
- What exactly is the risk, how big is it, and who does it affect?
- Can the audience judge the significance of any statistics or other research? Is the reporting clear about how any risk has been measured - for example the size of any research sample, margin of error, the source of any figures and the sponsor of the research?
- If you are reporting a change in the level of risk, have you clearly stated the baseline figure? (A 100% increase or doubling of a problem that affects one person in two million will still only affect one in a million.)
- Is it more appropriate and measured to ask "How safe is this?", rather than "Is this 100% safe?"
- If a contributor's view runs contrary to majority expert opinion, is that clear in our report, questions and casting of any discussion?
- We should consider the impact on public perceptions of risk if we feature emotional pictures and personal testimony.
- Is there an everyday comparison that may make the size of the reported risk easier to understand? (For example, "it's as risky as crossing the road once a day")
- Would information about comparative risks help the audience to put the risk in context and make properly informed choices? Consider for example, causing undue worry about safety of the railways could lead audiences to migrate to the roads unaware that the safety risk is many times greater.
- Can the audience be given sources of further information?
Sue Inglish and Roger Harrabin, July 2003
This Editorial Policy Further Guidance was first produced on 6 May 2005.