Peter M. Sandman Video and Audio
Risk Communication Materials

This page lists all my video and audio risk communication materials – a convenient resource for people who are looking for something to play for a group, or who would rather watch and listen than read. I have a big stack of video and audio recordings – mostly of client presentations – that are not currently online. Over time, I plan to sort through these and post the ones that I think add the most value (and that don’t reveal client confidences). I’ll also try to add new ones when I do a presentation or give an interview that covers material not already covered. I have been far too print-focused for far too long.

The list is not organized chronologically, as the other content lists on this website are. Instead, it is organized by topic. And within each topic area, it is in order of my best guess at what people are going to want to watch or listen to – with the most valuable selections for each topic area at the top, and the “just in case you’re interested” ones at the bottom.



Introduction and Orientation

Risk=Hazard+Outrage: Some Risk Communication Basics (and some COVID comments) – 2024 Edition

Class presented via Zoom to Prof. Michael Osterholm’s course on “Emerging Infectious Diseases: Current Issues, Policies and Controversies,” University of Minnesota School of Public Health, February 5, 2024

Prof. Mike Osterholm of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy periodically asks me to give a Zoom class on risk communication for his School of Public Health graduate course on “Emerging Infectious Diseases.” I previously posted the March 21, 2022 “edition.” You can access the video, audio, and slide set there.

This is the February 5, 2024 edition. The main difference is this time I got permission to include an audio of the 83-minute Q&A that followed my presentation. This Q&A pretty much ignored my hazard-versus-outrage basics and focused on what went wrong in COVID risk communication. The class reading assignment had included two of my pre-COVID articles on public health dishonesty (here and here), so there was discussion of that topic too. I recorded the Q&A on my phone, so my answers are clear but the students’ questions are barely audible.

Another difference: This time I'm also posting Zoom’s machine transcript of the presentation, for those who’d rather read than watch or listen.

The content of the Q&A is new, of course, but the presentation itself is mostly my trademark explanation of the distinction between hazard and outrage and the resulting paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy, outrage management, crisis communication, and public participation. Along the way and at the very end I commented on COVID implications of the various paradigms … a little of which did change between 2022 and 2024.

Risk = Hazard + Outrage: Some Risk Communication Basics (and some COVID comments)

Class presented via Zoom to Prof. Michael Osterholm’s course on “Emerging Infectious Diseases: Current Issues, Policies and Controversies,” University of Minnesota School of Public Health, March 21, 2022.

Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy periodically asks me to give a Zoom class on risk communication for his School of Public Health course on emerging infectious diseases. The most recent one on March 21, 2022 was recorded (except for the wonderful Q&A) – so here it is.

It’s mostly my trademark presentation on the distinction between hazard and outrage and the resulting paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy, outrage management, crisis communication, and public participation (stakeholder consultation). Along the way and at the very end I commented briefly on COVID risk communication.

Looking Back: Tracing How I Got to My Approach to Risk Communication

Interview via Zoom with Margaret Harvie and Lewis Michaelson, April 27, 2023

In early March 2023, Australian friend and colleague Margaret Harvie asked me to sit for a Zoom interview on the history of my approach to risk communication. She said she and Lewis Michaelson were doing a series of such interviews for the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) with “creators of some of the IAP2 products,” focusing on “what was happening at the time that led to [their] thinking.” The result was a 66-minute three-way April 27 interview, a chance for me to talk my way through how I got into risk communication, how I came up with “Hazard versus Outrage,” how I think outrage management relates to public participation, and related topics. I also spent some time at the end outlining some of the ways risk communication can be subdivided: precaution advocacy versus outrage management versus crisis communication versus “the sweet spot”; education versus persuasion; stakeholder relations versus public relations versus government relations etc.; and support mobilization versus public relations versus outrage management.

Risk = Hazard + Outrage: Three Paradigms of (Radiation) Risk Communication

Webinar presented via Zoom to the “Web Symposium on Risk Communication in Radiation Disaster,” Fukushima Medical University, February 7, 2022 (presentation prerecorded on December 16, 2021)

This is my basic introduction to risk communication, focusing on the distinction between hazard and outrage and the three paradigms of risk communication resulting from that distinction – plus a fourth paradigm, stakeholder consultation when hazard and outrage are both intermediate. The occasional references to radiation-specific issues are brief, as is the Q&A at the end. I do like the slides on radiation-related uses for each paradigm. Also, the video is higher-quality technically than the other Zoom videos I have posted. Since the symposium sponsor has posted the video on YouTube, I’m linking to it there instead of uploading it to Vimeo as usual.

Risk = Hazard + Outrage: Three Paradigms of (Wildfire) Risk Communication

Webinar presented via Zoom, hosted by the European Forest Institute, November 15, 2021

In July 2021, the European Forest Institute started putting together a risk communication course, to be offered in November for wildfire management doctoral students throughout Europe (and a few from elsewhere). I agreed to give the November 15 keynote (via Zoom). At EFI’s request, I kept the keynote generic. Applying my principles to wildfire risk communication challenges would be the students’ task, I was told, not mine. So only the last minute or two of my 45-minute presentation has anything to do with wildfires, plus the 25-minute Q&A that followed.

The presentation itself focuses on the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three risk communication paradigms that follow from that distinction – plus a fourth paradigm I don’t always talk about, public consultation when both hazard and outrage are intermediate. I didn’t break any new ground here, but this is a pretty good, pretty short introduction to the basics of my approach. And I think the 25-minute Q&A is excellent.

Pesticide Outrage Management – Part 1

Webinar presented via Zoom to the Region One Pesticide Inspector Regional Training (PIRT) program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 23, 2021

I came out of retirement in January 2020 to try to help with the COVID pandemic. I wasn’t interested in any other work. But in early 2021, I was asked to do a two-hour Zoom training seminar for pesticide managers on how to cope with pesticide safety controversies. I thought it would be a nice change of pace from the pandemic, so I said yes.

This is Part 1, 56 minutes long, devoted mostly to the basics of risk communication: the distinction between hazard and outrage and the three paradigms of risk communication resulting from that distinction. Toward the end I focus on the paradigm most relevant to pesticide controversies, outrage management – beginning with some thoughts on how to stay empathetic in high-stress situations. Part 2 (65 minutes) is listed here, including more on outrage management and some Q&A on pesticide outrage management in particular.

The training was sponsored by the Region One Pesticide Inspector Regional Training (PIRT) program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It was organized and hosted by the Pesticide Management Program of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

Introduction to Risk Communication

Presented to the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, Sydney Australia, February 2, 2016

This three-hour video (and audio) is the entire first morning of a 1–1/2-day risk communication seminar I presented in February 2016 for the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority. GHD, an Australia-based engineering and environmental consulting firm, brought me to Australia for this and other events.

The video covers the same ground as the first half-day of my September 2010 risk communication seminar for the Rio Tinto mining company, listed below under the title “Outrage Management Course.” There are differences, but they’re very minor given that a half-decade had passed and this time I was talking to a regulatory agency instead of a mining company. Watch whichever one you prefer.

Other environmental regulators from throughout Australia were also invited to attend the EPA seminar, courtesy of the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators Network (AELERT), which videotaped the first morning. AELERT also made three edited segments based on the raw footage. Two are available in video and audio, and one just in audio. Choose either the unedited tape (inaudible questions and all) or the three edited segments. (There is no edited segment covering the last part of the morning on the three risk communication “games.”)

1.  The Unedited Tape

Here's a rough time breakdown of the unedited tape:

0:00 – 0:21Various introductions, agenda review, etc.
0:21 – 1:07Risk = Hazard + Outrage
1:07 – 1:27 Sample Outrage Assessment: Genetically Modified Foods
1:27 – 1:39Risk = Hazard + Outrage (continued)
1:39 – 2:38Three Paradigms of Risk Communication: Precaution Advocacy,
Outrage Management, and Crisis Communication
2:38 – 3:02Three Risk Communication “Games”: Follow-the-Leader, Donkey, and Seesaw

2.  Risk = Hazard + Outrage

This material runs 58 minutes in the unedited tape; AELERT edited it down to a 30-minute audio "podcast" on the basics of the hazard-versus-outrage concept.

3.  Predicting Outrage: A GM Food Case Study

The 20-minute “Sample Outrage Assessment” segment in the unedited tape was edited down just a bit to 17 minutes, with some added slides and cutaways.

4.  Three Different Types of Risk Communication

The 59-minute segment in the unedited tape runs 37 minutes in AELERT’s edit, with some added slides and cutaways. Based on the “hazard versus outrage” distinction, the segment identifies three key risk communication paradigms:
  1. Precaution advocacy (high-hazard, low-outrage)
  2. Outrage management (low-hazard, high-outrage)
  3. Crisis communication (high-hazard, high-outrage)
  4. Most of the video focuses on outrage management.

Outrage Management Course

Presented to the Rio Tinto mining company, Brisbane, Australia, September 16–17, 2010

The clips below are from the first half-day of the two-day course, and constitute a broad introduction to risk communication. Later clips focus specifically on outrage management.

1.   Risk = Hazard + Outrage

This video clip outlines the fundamental distinction between a risk’s “hazard” (how much harm it’s likely to do) and its “outrage” (how upset it’s likely to make people). The selection emphasizes that both hazard perception and hazard response result more from outrage than from hazard.

Two short excerpts from this clip have been posted on YouTube (more or less as advertisements for the clip, and the course as a whole).

2.  Components of Outrage and a Sample Outrage Assessment

This video clip runs through the twelve principal components of outrage (voluntary versus coerced, natural versus industrial, etc.). Then it illustrates these components with a seat-of-the-pants “outrage assessment” of genetically modified food.

3.  Three Paradigms of Risk Communication

This video clip outlines the three main paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy (when hazard is high and outrage is low); outrage management (when hazard is low and outrage is high); and crisis communication (when hazard and outrage are both high).

4.  Three Risk Communication “Games”

This video clip describes three risk communication “games”: follow-the-leader (when you’re talking to an audience with no prior opinion); donkey (when you’re talking to an audience whose prior opinion you’re trying to change); and above all seesaw (when your audience is ambivalent, torn between the opinion you’re championing and an opposing opinion).

Three Paradigms of Risk Communication – and a critique of COVID-19 Crisis Communication

Webinar presented via Zoom, then posted on YouTube, hosted by the Institute for Risk and Uncertainty, University of Liverpool, July 7, 2021

In April 2021, the University of Liverpool Institute for Risk and Uncertainty asked me to give a presentation in its monthly webinar series. We agreed I would divide my time between my “signature risk communication formula” and my criticisms of the way COVID-19 has been communicated. And on July 7 that’s what I did. The first third of this 94-minute webinar is introductory, my “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula and the three risk communication paradigms I derive from the formula. The second third is my critique of COVID-19 crisis communication, mostly in the U.S. The final third is Q&A and discussion, much of it focusing on COVID-19 risk communication dilemmas in the U.K.

My hosts promptly posted the webinar on YouTube, as they always do. That link is below. Also below is an audio-only recording of the webinar and my slide set, so you’re free to follow along on your own if you prefer.

Communicating Risk: Neglected and Controversial Rules of Thumb

Presented at the Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Georgia, Athens GA, October 16, 2013

In October 2013, I spent three days at the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication. The main agenda was to negotiate a possible “Sandman Archive” of my papers and web materials, an initiative of the new Grady program in health and risk communication. (See “Working Toward a Legacy.”) But while I was there I also gave a number of class presentations and one public presentation, which was videotaped. I offered my hosts a choice of half a dozen presentation topics, and they asked me to combine them all into a potpourri of interesting risk communication pointers. So this video is different from most of the introductory videos I have posted. It’s got a little of everything. There’s a quick summary of “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” and my three paradigms of risk communication (my usual introductory shtick). But there’s also a discussion of why information is rarely life-changing and why cognitive dissonance can make it so; of why it’s important to be willing to speculate and to be willing to scare people; and of the need for public health professionals to tell the whole truth about vaccination. As I said: a potpourri.

Peter Sandman: How Your Ability To Process Risk Can Save Your Life

Interview with Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity, podcast posted July 7, 2020

Chris Martenson’s “Peak Prosperity” YouTube channel currently claims 368,000 subscribers. Chris is best known for his “Crash Course” on how pretty much everything is in rapid decline. In 2020, not surprisingly, he has posted dozens of videos on COVID-19. One of these, posted in March, was devoted entirely to my 2005 article on the adjustment reaction concept. Entitled “Coronavirus: How To Inform Your Friends & Family Without Creating Pushback,” Link goes to YouTube  it got 330,000 views and 4,428 comments in three months – way out of my league.

So when Chris said he wanted to interview me via Zoom for an hour-long podcast, I said yes. We did it on June 29. Chris wanted to talk (again!) about adjustment reactions. I wanted to talk (again) about the basics of risk communication. We both wanted to talk about the ways the U.S. is mismanaging the COVID-19 pandemic. So we did all three. Our COVID-19 discussion focused mostly on a risk communication analysis, but we inevitably veered into risk management and epidemiology as well.

“Communicating Risk in the Media”

Aired on Australian Broadcasting Corporation's “Media Report” radio program and posted on its website, August 28, 2014

“Quick Orientation to Risk Communication“

Interview with Peter Sandman by Richard Aedy, August 11, 2014

Richard Aedy interviewed me for Australian radio via telephone for 20 minutes on August 11. The edited 11:40 interview aired on August 28, a few days before I started a speaking and consulting tour of Australia. There’s nothing special about this interview, except the fact that it’s recent and short. We covered the usual basics: the hazard-versus-outrage distinction, the three paradigms of risk communication, etc. Like many media interviewers, Richard was especially interested in whether risk communication is really just a different label for “spin,” and in what I think about the performance of the media. (In fairness, he asked about social media as well as mainstream media.) As always, I prefer the longer or more idiosyncratic interviews. But this one is a sensible quick orientation.

Quantitative Risk Communication: Explaining the Data

Produced by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, 1994

In my approach to risk communication, explaining the data is secondary; addressing outrage – raising it, reducing it, or helping people cope with it – is what’s crucial. Nonetheless, the time comes in most risk communication efforts when you’ve got to explain the data. This studio-produced 1994 video focuses on three key aspects of quantitative risk communication:

  • Motivation – getting people to want to understand the data
  • Simplification – making the data understandable
  • Orientation – keeping people from getting lost

There’s also some discussion of how to address uncertainty and how to handle risk comparisons.

(This video was produced in 1994 by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. It went out of print in 2007. With AIHA’s permission, the entire video is now available free of charge online.)

Atomic Show #205 – Peter Sandman teaches nuclear communicators

Podcast for the “Atomic Insights” website, May 31, 2013 (with Rod Adams, Margaret Harding, Meredith Angwin, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker)

Rod Adams runs a website called “Atomic Insights” that promotes nuclear power. In early May 2013 he discovered my approach to outrage management, and put posts on his own website and on an American Nuclear Society website urging nuclear power proponents to learn outrage management. The responses to his two posts led Rod to invite me to do this podcast.

The podcast itself runs 1 hour and 42 minutes. Most of it is a basic introduction to risk communication and then to outrage management: the hazard-versus-outrage distinction, the components of outrage, the three paradigms of risk communication, the key strategies of outrage management, etc. But I did try to focus especially on what the nuclear power industry and its supporters get wrong – for example, imagining that their core communication mistake is failing to sell their strengths effectively, whereas I believe it is failing to acknowledge their problems candidly. There are recommendations for nuclear communication throughout the podcast, and a Q&A at the end with Rod and fellow proponents Margaret Harding, Meredith Angwin, and Suzy Hobbs-Baker. The plan is to follow up with a second podcast, a more narrowly focused roundtable discussion among the five of us on nuclear power outrage management.

Terrorists vs. Bathtubs

(Edited) interview with Peter Sandman by Brooke Gladstone, June 20, 2013

Aired on National Public Radio’s “On the Media” and posted on its website, June 21, 2013

Risk Communication in Practice

(Complete) interview with Peter Sandman by Brooke Gladstone, June 20, 2013

Brooke Gladstone of “On the Media” interviewed me in my home for 49 minutes. We started out talking about claims by opponents of NSA telephone and email surveillance (in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks) that “more people have died from [whatever] than from terrorism” – and why these sorts of risk comparisons are unlikely to be convincing. That soon got me to the distinction between hazard and outrage. But Brooke didn’t let me do my usual hazard-versus-outrage introductory shtick. Instead, she kept asking for specifics – examples of how precaution advocacy and outrage management strategies work in practice. Toward the end of the interview, she pushed me to shoot from the hip about applications I hadn’t thought through: How would I use risk communication to defend government surveillance? To oppose it? To defend shale gas “fracking”? To oppose that? The interview that resulted is a different sort of introduction to risk communication than the one I usually give. The 10-minute broadcast segment is nicely edited; it’s very smooth and covers most of my main points. But I prefer the roughness and detail of the complete interview.

Risk Communication in Healthcare Settings Podcasts

Taped for the British Columbia (Canada) Provincial Health Services Authority and Vancouver Coastal Health, February 15, 2011

This was a 50-minute telephone interview later divided into four podcasts. Although the intended audience was healthcare managers, the first two podcasts barely mention healthcare, and are really generic. The third and fourth podcasts focus more on healthcare examples, and are listed below in the “Infectious Diseases” section.

1.  Introduction to Risk Communication

This audio clip distinguishes the terms “risk communication,” “risk assessment,” and “crisis communication”; describes the fundamental risk communication distinction between hazard and outrage; and uses that distinction to define the three paradigms of risk communication. It ends with a discussion of how to measure outrage.

2.  Three Paradigms of Risk Communication

This audio clip discusses some key strategies associated with each of the three paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy (high hazard, low outrage), outrage management (low hazard, high outrage), and crisis communication (high hazard, high outrage). It emphasizes the need to assess – and continually reassess – which paradigm is called for by the specific communication environment you face.

Interview with Dr. Peter Sandman

by Andrew Findlater

Posted on the National Public Relations website, March 9, 2009

Note: This is the shortest audio introduction to my approach to risk communication. Naturally I prefer the longer ones.

Canadian PR firm National Public Relations was one of the sponsors that brought me to Vancouver in March 2009 to give a two-day risk communication seminar (jointly with my wife and colleague Jody Lanard), organized by the University of British Columbia. As part of the event, the company taped this seven-minute interview with me on the basics of my “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula. The tape was posted (and labeled a “podcast”) on the National Public Relations website, and the link was emailed to conference participants and National Public Relations clients. It’s no longer on the National Public Relations site, so I have posted it here.

Food Safety Risk Communications

Presented at the Maple Leaf Food Safety Symposium, Mississauga Canada, October 23, 2009

Note: This audio clip covers much the same ground as the Rio Tinto video clips listed above – but of course it’s much, much shorter and less detailed.

In August 2008, Listeria contamination in Maple Leaf packaged deli meats killed 21 elderly consumers, one of the largest food poisoning disasters in Canadian history. As one small part of its recovery efforts, Maple Leaf Foods sponsored a food safety symposium in October 2009, bringing together producers, retailers, and regulators to talk about lessons learned and ways to protect against Listeria. My presentation on “Food Safety Risk Communication” was inserted as respite from the technical material in most of the other speeches. I did my usual introduction to hazard versus outrage and the kinds of risk communication, and then offered a few food-specific examples (until I ran out of time). Audience comments and questions weren’t recorded; that’s what the occasional moments of dead air are.

Fundamentals of risk communication: How to talk to patients and the public about pandemic H1N1

Presented to the European Respiratory Society international conference, Vienna, Austria, September 14, 2009

Note: This audio clip covers much the same ground as the Rio Tinto video clips listed above – but of course it’s much, much shorter and less detailed.

The European Respiratory Society invited me give a 20-minute presentation on pandemic communication at its annual conference, as part of a panel on various aspects of pandemic H1N1. I pleaded for an extra hour right afterwards to go into more detail for those who wanted it. Some 20,000 respiratory disease doctors attended the conference; roughly 2,000 of them were at the panel; about 200 followed me to a smaller room for my extra hour (which I did jointly with my wife and colleague Jody Lanard, an M.D.). Only the panel presentation is posted on the ERS website. It’s mostly an introduction to the basics of risk communication (hazard versus outrage; precaution advocacy versus outrage management versus crisis communication), with some quick comments on the implications for pandemic communication. The meat was in the hour that followed, which unfortunately wasn’t recorded.

Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication: Alerting, Reassuring, Guiding

Presented to the National Public Health Information Coalition, Miami Beach FL, October 21, 2009

Although this six-hour seminar was entitled “Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication,” NPHIC asked me to go easy on the “radiological” part and give participants a broad introduction to my approach to risk communication, mentioning radiation issues from time to time. So that’s what I did.

Fair warning: These are not professional videos. NPHIC member Joe Rebele put a camera in the back of the room and let it run. You won’t lose much listening to the MP3 audio files on this site instead.

Part One (90 min.)

Despite its poor production values, Part One is a decent introduction to the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three paradigms of risk communication.

Part Two (155 min.)

If you’re interested, Part Two starts with 20 minutes or so on the seesaw and other risk communication games (thus completing the introductory segment). The rest of Part Two spends a little over an hour each on some key strategies of precaution advocacy and outrage management.

Part Three (72 min.)

Part Three is devoted to strategies of crisis communication.

Precaution Advocacy

Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication: Alerting, Reassuring, Guiding

Presented to the National Public Health Information Coalition, Miami Beach FL, October 21, 2009

Although this six-hour seminar was entitled “Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication,” NPHIC asked me to go easy on the “radiological” part and give participants a broad introduction to my approach to risk communication, mentioning radiation issues from time to time. So that’s what I did.

Fair warning: These are not professional videos. NPHIC member Joe Rebele put a camera in the back of the room and let it run. You won’t lose much listening to the MP3 audio files on this site instead.

Part Two (155 min.)

Despite its poor production values, Part Two includes a little over an hour on some key strategies of precaution advocacy. It’s preceded by about 20 minutes on the seesaw and other risk communication games, and followed by an hour or so on outrage management strategies. I have better videos posted on the games and on outrage management, but until I find a better segment to post on precaution advocacy, this one is better than nothing.

Part One (90 min.)

If you’re interested, Part One is an introduction to the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three paradigms of risk communication.

Part Three (72 min.)

Part Three is devoted to strategies of crisis communication.

Talking to the Public about Emergency Preparedness

Interview with Peter M. Sandman by Marisa Raphael, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, February 27, 2014

Marisa Raphael is Deputy Commissioner at the Office of Emergency Preparedness and Response of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. She is also participating in the National Preparedness Leadership Institute (NPLI) at Harvard University. On February 27, 2014, she interviewed me for an hour by telephone on behalf of an NPLI project on ways to improve emergency preparedness communications with the general public. Although we spent a little time at the end of the interview covering some basics for communicating mid-crisis, we stuck mostly to pre-crisis communication, a kind of precaution advocacy. We covered two main topics. First we talked about why it’s so hard to build citizen support for government emergency preparedness expenditures, and what kind of messaging strategies are likeliest to lead to such support. Then we switched to a more conventional topic: how to motivate people to do their own personal, family, or neighborhood emergency preparedness.

Scaring People: The Uses and Limitations of Fear Appeals

Part One of a two-part interview with Peter M. Sandman by George Whitney of Complete EM, July 22, 2016.

George Whitney runs an emergency management consulting company called Complete EM. His website features a blog and a podcast series. On July 22, 2016 he interviewed me by phone for nearly two hours. He edited the interview into two podcasts, which he entitled “Dr. Peter Sandman – Risk Communication” and “Dr. Peter Sandman – Crisis Communication.” I have given them new titles.

This interview segment isn’t really about emergency management or crisis communication at all. It’s about pre-crisis communication – a part of what I call precaution advocacy. When he briefed me for the interview, George had told me he wanted to focus on fear appeals. He thought emergency management professionals relied too much on fear in their warnings about earthquakes and other natural disasters, and he wanted to know whether I agreed. So for the first 45 minutes or so we talked about the uses and limitations of fear appeals. At the end of what became Part One of George’s two-part podcast, he asked me to reflect on what had changed in my 40+ years as a risk communication consultant. I cited two big changes: the slow migration from craft to science, and the growing understanding of what it takes to calm people who are more upset about some risk than you think they should be. (Part Two is “Crisis Communication for Emergency Managers.”)

Are E-Cigs a Crisis? It’s Risky to Call Them ‘Unsafe’

by Faye Flam

Posted on the Bloomberg Opinion website, June 3, 2019

The U.S. Public Health Establishment Risks Scaring People into Smoking

Interview with Peter Sandman by Faye Flam, May 28, 2019

I am very nearly retired, but when Bloomberg commentator Faye Flam asked to interview me about e-cigarettes, I couldn’t resist saying yes. I have been highly critical of how the U.S. public health establishment smears e-cigs at least since 2015, when I posted “A Promising Candidate for Most Dangerously Dishonest Public Health News Release of the Year.” Precaution advocacy often exaggerates, and I am used to hyperbolic public health warnings about, say, the dangers of vaccine-preventable diseases. But such warnings can save lives even if they’re less than honest, which some say justifies the dishonesty. Warnings about e-cigs, on the other hand, could convince people that they might just as well smoke instead – a profound disservice if, as seems likely, vaping is an order of magnitude safer than smoking. Faye’s article is based on more than just her interview with me, and the interview has a lot of information she didn’t use in the article. So you might want to check out both.
(In the same interview, Faye also asked me about the failed Dengvaxia vaccine campaign in the Philippines. I’ll post that part of the interview with a link to her Dengvaxia article if she writes one.)

When It’s Okay for Health Officials to Panic, and When It’s Not

by Faye Flam

Posted on the Bloomberg Opinion website, October 6, 2019

Honest versus Dishonest Teachable Moments in Public Health Warnings

Interview with Peter Sandman by Faye Flam, September 24, 2019

Dishonest E-Cig Warnings and the Ethics of Health Scares

Two emails from Peter M. Sandman to Faye Flam, September 11 and September 13, 2019

In May 2019, Bloomberg reporter Faye Flam interviewed me link is to an audio MP3 file for a story on e-cigarette risk communication – and my view that the public health establishment has been dishonestly alarmist about vaping, so much so that it risks scaring people into smoking instead. On September 10, 2019, she emailed me to ask about a follow-up interview. We exchanged a few emails about whether Bloomberg would let her write another “pro-vaping” article, given Michael Bloomberg’s fervent opposition. So we started emailing back and forth about “health scares” more generically. Two of my emails to Faye strike me as worth posting: one on September 11 about the recent spate of lung injuries linked to vaping (especially vaping illegal marijuana); the other on September 13 about when it is or isn’t appropriate for public health officials to try to frighten the public. Our eventual September 24 interview dealt largely with e-cigs but also addressed some other health scares (bird flu, equine encephalitis, red meat, climate change), as did her resulting October 6 article. The interview, of course, is a lot more detailed than the very brief article.

Climate Change Risk Communication: Outrage Management, Not Just Precaution Advocacy

Taped for Freakonomics Radio, July 25, 2011

This was a 48-minute telephone interview with Stephen Dubner, for a Freakonomics Radio program (and podcast) on climate change. The interview never made it into the program/podcast, but excerpts were added to the Freakonomics website on November 29, 2011. The first 17 minutes of the interview are generic – Risk Communication 101, basically. The rest is grounded mostly in my 2009 column on “Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial,” though Dubner periodically pushed me to speculate on new aspects of the topic. My main argument: Climate change risk communicators are good at informing and scaring apathetic people, but need an entirely different strategy – something more like outrage management – for people who are in denial about climate change.

Denial near and far

Broadcast on PRI’s “The World,” November 21, 2008

Radio reporter Jason Margolis of “The World” attended a conference of global climate change skeptics, decided they were more deniers than actual skeptics, and ended up with a 10-minute story on climate change denial. I was one of several experts he quoted to explore the reasons why so many people have trouble facing the threat of global warming. In our interview, I focused on some ways activist communications may unwittingly encourage audience denial. Jason used the part on guilt – on why telling people their lifestyle is destroying the earth may not be the best way to inspire them to action. My views are elaborated further in a 2009 column on “Climate Change Risk Communication: The Problem of Psychological Denial.”

Despite near certainty in new UN report, a climate of denial persists

Interview with Peter M. Sandman by Marco Werman, aired on “The World” on PRI (Public Radio International) and posted on its website, September 27, 2013

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its new report – claiming more certainty than ever before that the global warming threat is dire – Marco Werman of PRI’s “The World” interviewed me about why I thought many people might find the report’s conclusions hard to accept, and might go into a kind of psychological denial instead. The interview lasted about ten minutes, but was cut to less than five for airing. I made too many minor points that got used, albeit in abbreviated form. So my main point got almost completely lost – that climate change activists were their own worst enemies because they kept saying things that were likely to provoke or deepen people’s denial instead of things that could help people overcome their denial. For example, I told Marco, too many environmentalists were greeting the IPCC’s bad news triumphantly, almost gleefully – sounding more pleased that they were being proved right than devastated that the world’s in deep trouble. People who like their SUVs and are having a hard time accepting that they may have to give up their SUVs (that’s a kind of denial) may just barely be able to believe it if a fellow SUV fan sadly tells them so. They’re not about to believe it if it’s exultantly announced by someone who has hated the internal combustion engine since before global climate change was even an issue. For several better explanations of my thinking about climate change denial, see any of the other entries with “climate” and/or “denial” in their titles in the “On Environmental Activism” section of my Precaution Advocacy index.


Outrage Management

Pesticide Outrage Management – Parts 1 and 2

Webinar presented via Zoom to the Region One Pesticide Inspector Regional Training (PIRT) program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 23, 2021

I came out of retirement in January 2020 to try to help with the COVID pandemic. I wasn’t interested in any other work. But in early 2021, I was asked to do a two-hour Zoom training seminar for pesticide managers on how to cope with pesticide safety controversies. I thought it would be a nice change of pace from the pandemic, so I said yes.

Part 1, 56 minutes long, is devoted mostly to the basics of risk communication: the distinction between hazard and outrage and the three paradigms of risk communication resulting from that distinction. Toward the end I focus on the paradigm most relevant to pesticide controversies, outrage management – beginning with some thoughts on how to stay empathetic in high-stress situations. Part 2 (65 minutes) includes more on outrage management and some Q&A on pesticide outrage management in particular.

The training was sponsored by the Region One Pesticide Inspector Regional Training (PIRT) program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It was organized and hosted by the Pesticide Management Program of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.

Outrage Management Course

Presented to the Rio Tinto mining company, Brisbane, Australia, September 16–17, 2010

In September 2010 I did a two-day outrage management seminar in Brisbane, Australia for the Rio Tinto mining company. With the company’s permission, I edited out all references to specific Rio Tinto controversies, and arranged what was left into a coherent sequence of twelve clips, starting with the basic “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula and ending with the organizational barriers to following the outrage management principles. Clips #1, #3, and #4 are listed in the “Introduction and Orientation“ section. All twelve are listed in sequence in my “Peter Sandman on Risk Communication” channel on Vimeo.

Risk = Hazard + Outrage: A Formula for Effective Risk Communication

Produced by the American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax VA, 1991

This 111-minute video sold briskly for more than 20 years until the American Industrial Hygiene Association stopped distributing it in January 2012. Now it’s available for free on Vimeo (video) and on this site (audio). Unlike many of my videos, this one was professionally produced in a studio, with multiple cameras and an actual set. Although my standard spiel has changed some since 1991, everything here is still true and still useful. The video is especially valuable for its detailed discussion of the 12 principal outrage components link is to a PDF file and how to deal with them. These days I talk more about generic outrage management strategies, and less about these component-specific strategies. (Note that I’m using the original files from the AIHA DVD; some of the “parts” begin and end arbitrarily.)

If you’d rather read than watch/listen, I cover the same ground as this video in Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of my 1993 book, “Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication.” link is to a PDF file The book was also published and sold by AIHA, but is now available on this site without charge.

Crisis Communication for Emergency Managers

Part Two of a two-part interview with Peter M. Sandman by George Whitney of Complete EM, July 22, 2016.

George Whitney runs an emergency management consulting company called Complete EM. His website features a blog and a podcast series. On July 22, 2016 he interviewed me by phone for nearly two hours. He edited the interview into two podcasts, which he entitled “Dr. Peter Sandman – Risk Communication” and “Dr. Peter Sandman – Crisis Communication.” I have given them new titles.

This interview segment, George’s Part Two, ranges broadly. After distinguishing crisis communication from pre-crisis communication, I focused first on some crisis communication basics: don’t over-reassure, don’t be over-confident, don’t think people are panicking when they’re not. Then in response to George’s questions I addressed an assortment of additional topics: civil unrest; crisis planning; the L’Aquila earthquake communication controversy; crisis mnemonics like “Run – Hide – Fight”; how emergency management professionals can use social media; and the pros and cons of going public in a crisis before you have come up to speed. (Part One is “Scaring People: The Uses and Limitations of Fear Appeals.”)

Emergency Risk Communication CDCynergy video clips

Produced by the U.S. CDC and others as part of a 2003 CD-ROM

The “Emergency Risk Communication CDCynergy” CD-ROM from which these video clips were taken was originally produced in 2003 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Office of Communication), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Prospect Center of the American Institutes for Research, and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education. The complete CD-ROM can be ordered. Much of the CD-ROM is also available without charge online, but many of the online links no longer work.

I was one of a number of risk communication experts who contributed to the CD-ROM. Three of my written contributions have long been posted on this website:

The following short video clips on various aspects of crisis communication were part of the CD-ROM but no longer load in the online version. So I have posted them here, converted to Flash videos and .mpeg4.

Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication: Alerting, Reassuring, Guiding

Presented to the National Public Health Information Coalition, Miami Beach FL, October 21, 2009

Although this six-hour seminar was entitled “Three Paradigms of Radiological Risk Communication,” NPHIC asked me to go easy on the “radiological” part and give participants a broad introduction to my approach to risk communication, mentioning radiation issues from time to time. So that’s what I did.

Fair warning: These are not professional videos. NPHIC member Joe Rebele put a camera in the back of the room and let it run. You won’t lose much listening to the MP3 audio files on this site instead.

Part Three (72 min.)

Despite its poor production values, Part Three is the most complete rundown on crisis communication strategies I have so far posted in video or audio.

Part One (90 min.)

If you’re interested, Part One is a decent introduction to the hazard-versus-outrage distinction and the three paradigms of risk communication.

Part Two (155 min.)

Part Two starts with 20 minutes of so on the seesaw and other risk communication games (thus completing the introductory segment). The rest of Part Two spends a little over an hour each on some key strategies of precaution advocacy and outrage management.

How to Lead during Times of Trouble

A roundtable discussion at “The Public as an Asset, Not a Problem: A Summit on Leadership during Bioterrorism,” Johns Hopkins University Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, Washington DC, February, 2003

In early February of 2003, I attended a wonderful conference on bioterrorism, focused on “the public as an asset, not a problem.” The panel I participated in was about how to lead a community during times of trouble. Most of the panelists had actually led their communities through various crises, from the 2001 anthrax attacks to Oklahoma City’s bombing; I was added, along with the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn, so there would be at least two panelists whose experience was observing rather than doing. I made basically two points: that the public can take it when officials or experts disagree, and that fear is appropriate in crisis situations and officials shouldn’t try to “allay” it.

BP’s Communication Response to the Deepwater Horizon Spill

BBC Radio 4 interview with Peter M. Sandman, broadcast on the “PM” newscast, May 3, 2010

On May 3 I did a brief interview with BBC Radio on risk communication aspects of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Although the interview was prerecorded, to my surprise they used the whole thing. In addition to the MP3 file with the interview, I have posted a summary of what I said and what else I’d have liked to say. My later reflections on the spill were more critical of BP. See for example my September 2010 column, “Risk Communication Lessons from the BP Spill.”


Infectious Diseases

8 Things U.S. Pandemic Communicators Still Get Wrong

Presentation via Zoom to the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, January 11, 2022

This 80-minute presentation addresses eight COVID risk communication mistakes that I believe are undermining public trust in public health: overconfidence and failure to proclaim uncertainty; failure to do anticipatory guidance; fake consensus; prioritizing health over all other goods; prioritizing health over truth; failure to own your mistakes; failure to address misinformation credibly and empathetically; and politicization.

To listen to specific segments:

  1. Overconfidence and failure to proclaim uncertainty (11:22)
  2. Failure to do anticipatory guidance (18:29)
  3. Fake consensus (25:26)
  4. Prioritizing health over all other goods (33:13)
  5. Prioritizing health over truth (42:55)
  6. Failure to own your mistakes (53:40)
  7. Failure to address misinformation credibly and empathetically (59:13)
  8. Politicization (1:14:28)

The presentation got its start as a November 15, 2021 Teams presentation to the Minnesota Department of Health. That was revised into a December 10, 2021 commentary for the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP), available both on the CIDRAP website and on this websitelink is to a PDF file. I revised it some more for the CSTE presentation. An additional hour of discussion was not taped.

U.S. Public Health Professionals Routinely Mislead the Public about Infectious Diseases: True or False? Dishonest or Self-Deceptive? Harmful or Benign?

Presented to the Leadership Forum, University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy, Minneapolis MN, October 5, 2016

This is the uncut video – 101 minutes long – of an October 5, 2016 presentation I gave to the CIDRAP Leadership Forum. It continues and updates an argument I have been making for years: that the public health profession is far too willing to say or imply untrue things in its communications with the public.

In my introductory comments I discuss the dishonesty of public health professionals generically: why they do it; why they get away with it (compared to corporate leaders who are far likelier to be caught and crucified); how they feel about it; whether it undermines their credibility; whether they’re intentionally dishonest or self-deceptive or deceived by their leaders; the relationship between dishonesty and disrespect; etc.

Then comes the meat of the presentation. I intended to focus on four detailed examples:

But I ran out of time toward the end and had to settle for a very short summary of my views about Zika funding.

Throughout the presentation, my position wasn't that public health professionals are wrong about these four controversies, but rather that they are too often dishonest and disrespectful in the way they make their case.

The text of my speech notes contains a lot of detail that I skipped in the actual presentation – both additional points and additional proof (with links) for the points I actually made in Minneapolis. It also has a Foreword written later. And it covers Zika funding; by the time I got to Zika funding in Minneapolis, I was nearly out of time.

My Top Gripes (some longstanding, some current and fleeting) about How Public Health Professionals Are Communicating COVID-19 Risk

Interview with Peter M. Sandman by Faye Flam, March 3, 2021

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Faye Flam of Bloomberg News has periodically checked in with me by email or phone. I posted the audio of our hour-long February 9 (2020) interview, which was mostly about the need to sound the alarm more aggressively; and our 1-1/2–hour July 23 (2020) interview, which was largely about lockdown versus “learning to dance with the virus.”

This time we talked for nearly two hours and covered a lot of ground, under the general heading of “my top gripes about how public health professionals are communicating COVID-19 risk.” The uniting theme insofar as there was one: the many ways experts and officials cherry-pick what to say based less on the truth as they understand it than on other factors: sometimes what they think will most effectively convince the public to do what they think best; sometimes their anger at what other experts and officials are saying; sometimes their values and political opinions; etc.

For those who don't want to listen to the whole 115 minutes, I have divided the audio tape into 11 segments. The titles are linked below.

Faye has a podcast series entitled “Follow the Science.” On March 12 she posted #13 in the series, “When Public Health Officials Lie,” based entirely on the second and third segments of our March 3 interview. I think she covered this material spectacularly well. On March 19 she posted #14, “When Trust in Experts Goes Too Far.” The second half of this podcast is an effort to tie together bits and pieces from the rest of the interview.

Risk=Hazard+Outrage: Some Risk Communication Basics (and some COVID comments) – 2024 Edition

Class presented via Zoom to Prof. Michael Osterholm’s course on “Emerging Infectious Diseases: Current Issues, Policies and Controversies,” University of Minnesota School of Public Health, February 5, 2024

Prof. Mike Osterholm of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy periodically asks me to give a Zoom class on risk communication for his School of Public Health graduate course on “Emerging Infectious Diseases.” I previously posted the March 21, 2022 “edition.” You can access the video, audio, and slide set there.

This is the February 5, 2024 edition. The main difference is this time I got permission to include an audio of the 83-minute Q&A that followed my presentation. This Q&A pretty much ignored my hazard-versus-outrage basics and focused on what went wrong in COVID risk communication. The class reading assignment had included two of my pre-COVID articles on public health dishonesty (here and here), so there was discussion of that topic too. I recorded the Q&A on my phone, so my answers are clear but the students’ questions are barely audible.

Another difference: This time I'm also posting Zoom’s machine transcript of the presentation, for those who’d rather read than watch or listen.

The content of the Q&A is new, of course, but the presentation itself is mostly my trademark explanation of the distinction between hazard and outrage and the resulting paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy, outrage management, crisis communication, and public participation. Along the way and at the very end I commented on COVID implications of the various paradigms … a little of which did change between 2022 and 2024.

Risk = Hazard + Outrage: Some Risk Communication Basics (and some COVID comments)

Class presented via Zoom to Prof. Michael Osterholm’s course on “Emerging Infectious Diseases: Current Issues, Policies and Controversies,” University of Minnesota School of Public Health, March 21, 2022.

Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy periodically asks me to give a Zoom class on risk communication for his School of Public Health course on emerging infectious diseases. The most recent one on March 21, 2022 was recorded (except for the wonderful Q&A) – so here it is.

It’s mostly my trademark presentation on the distinction between hazard and outrage and the resulting paradigms of risk communication: precaution advocacy, outrage management, crisis communication, and public participation (stakeholder consultation). Along the way and at the very end I commented briefly on COVID risk communication.

The U.S. Can Control Covid Without a Second Lockdown

by Faye Flam

Posted on the Bloomberg Opinion website, July 30, 2020

Lockdown Again versus Learning to Dance with the Virus

Interview with Peter M. Sandman by Faye Flam, July 23, 2020

Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, Faye Flam of Bloomberg News has periodically checked in with me by email or phone. I posted the audio of our hour-long February 9 interview, which was mostly about the need to sound the alarm more aggressively. Our July 23 interview, which ran almost 90 minutes, is a good follow-up. We focused on how I think the U.S. public health profession has mishandled and miscommunicated COVID-19 in the intervening months. First it underreacted and left us unprepared. Then it overreacted and sent us into lockdown. Then it justified the lockdown by promulgating a suppression narrative (prevent infections at all costs) instead of teaching us to balance priorities, flatten the curve, and “dance” with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Faye’s July 30 article is mostly in her voice, with few quotes from me or anyone else. But it captures much of what we talked about. I have divided the MP3 audio file into five segments, described below.

A COVID ‘second wave’ that never crashed. Should public health mislead if it saves lives in a pandemic?

by Jad Sleiman

Posted on the WHYY (Philadelphia) website, April 30, 2021 (and broadcast on various NPR stations at various times in the days that followed)

On March 8, 2021, Jad Sleiman of WHYY radio in Philadelphia interviewed me by telephone about the ways in which public health professionals “gild the lily” (my phrase, not his), saying things that aren’t strictly true when they believe doing so will help make public health messaging more persuasive and thereby save lives. We talked for an hour and 44 minutes, covering both COVID-19 examples and others from earlier in my career. On March 23 I posted the audio of the complete interview, divided into segments to make for easier listening, as well as an email I had sent to Jad before the interview. Descriptions and links for the original interview and pre-interview email are here.

On April 30, nearly two months after that March 8 interview, Jad finally used it. He posted two versions of his story: a 26-minute podcast and radio program (part of a WHYY series called “The Pulse” for National Public Radio) and a print article on the WHYY website. The two are very similar – and in my judgment, very well done. (Jad’s other source for the piece is Holley Wilkin, a health communications professor at Georgia State University.) Because I like what he produced so much, I didn’t want to bury it – so I decided to write this separate entry in my various indexes, rather than just attaching the new links to my March 23 entry.