Public Health Affairs

Author: Jim

  • Via WordPress.com: Security Incident

    Security Incident

    by Matt

    Tough note to communicate today: Automattic had a low-level (root) break-in to several of our servers, and potentially anything on those servers could have been revealed.

    via en.blog.wordpress.com

    Now for some good stories.

    This is my favorite, favorite, favorite crisis communication study this week. On the morning of Wednesday, April 13th, the blogging software company Automattic discovered a break-in on several of their servers. Potentially sensitive information may have been exposed and copied.

    First step, be first. This blog post is the first mention I could find on the subject anywhere, on the web, on Twitter, you name it. They’ve immediately become the go-to place and have set the tone.

    Second, be honest. The post, while short and not altogether technical, describes what happened and what they’re doing and have already done to correct the situation and make sure that it doesn’t happen again. Furthermore, the author acknowledges that this situation may take some time to resolve as opposed to saying something like, “Yep, we fixed it, all done. Pat, pat, pat on your head.”

    Third, be clear. There is only one really jargon-y part of the post, and the author attempted to clarify it (see the parenthetical “root” used to differentiate low-level not that bad from low-level very serious). The rest of the post is written at around an eighth-grade reading level with short sentences, lots of paragraphs and bullet points.

    Fourth, tell what it means. My biggest complaint with the radiation situation in Japan is the frustrating INES scale. It tells me nothing about what I, as someone affected by the disaster, should do. Should I worry more because it moved from a six to a seven? How to counteract the danger? The Automattic post gives three great bullet points on how to stay protected AND information on how best to manage the new behavior.

    Finally, be available. Comments are open on the post and a direct link to Support is given in the body of the post.

    This type of response is EXACTLY what I want to see from my internet host (and that’s one of the reasons I hosted my old BreakGlass blog and my personal family blog on WordPress.com). Truly a model of crisis communication. Full round of applause for the folks at Automattic and keep up the great work.

  • Radioactive Water and Crisis Communications

    Note: I know about some of the subjects in this article, and know some of the people. My discussion of this topic is informed solely from the content of the linked article and should not be construed as the official policy or stance of my Department. In addition, because I know some of the people whose actions are presented, I feel confident in saying that each is acting in the very best interest of the people of Philadelphia and working as hard as possible to remediate the situation. I present this article solely to illustrate a point about the difficulty in speaking about difficult situations and believe that I would write the same thing about any spokespeople in this situation.

    And now onto the meat.

    In the aftermath of the unfolding disaster in Japan, the US EPA has been testing drinking water supplies for radioactivity. One of the treatment plants in Philadelphia was identified as having the highest concentration of Iodine-131 of the 23 sites in 13 states where particles were found. Finding radioactivity is to be expected as radioactive particles are known to spread on prevailing winds, and it was further expected that they would fall out into communities around the globe. The real problem, though, is that the EPA released to the local newspaper that the levels collected after the earthquake are just about half of what were collected in August of last year. The full article that I’m referring to can be found here.

    This obviously raises a ton of questions. How safe is it, where is it coming from, what’s being done to stop it, who is at risk, and on and on.

    “At this point, that is not really know,” said EPA spokesman David Sternberg. “We’re investigating.”

    The thing I wanted to talk about is two comments made to the paper by two different spokespeople at the local Water Department. Neither are wrong, neither are egregious mistakes. Both actually speak to good crisis communications concepts. But the messages, when presented together, show the thin line between coordinated communication and mixed messages.

    “This is just unacceptable that this stuff is showing up.” “We’re not happy about this. To find that this stuff showed up in the river before [the Fukushima emissions] means that something is coming from somewhere that is not Japan and we need to track that down and stop it.”

    and

    “The water is safe. We were all drinking it today.”

    Again, neither is incorrect. In fact, both are valid statements that speak to different parts of an agency’s response. And maybe the statements are intended for wholly different audiences. One is, we’re going to figure this out and fix it. The second is, but in the meantime, we’re all perfectly safe.

    I see two problems. The first is, why are you fixing something that’s not a problem? The second is, they’ve assigned a level of acceptable risk to the public (read: it’s good enough for me, so it must be good enough for you).

    Be careful with assigning levels of acceptable risk. What’s acceptable to people who have studied radiation in drinking water and seen all the studies is much different than people who only know the scary myths (and realities, in some cases) of radioactivity. Instead of dismissing their fears, use this as a teaching opportunity. It is scary, even if there’s nothing to be afraid of.

    I do, however, like the statement about how they are doing something to fix this. “We’re working to figure out the problem, and in the meantime, this is what we’re doing to fix it until something more permanent is identified.” It didn’t come across in the article, but I would’ve loved to have seen an announcement of how they’ll keep the public up-to-date on the situation.

    All in all, I think that the Water folks did a good job with their crisis communications. Not perfect, but which crisis comms effort ever is. Both statements attributed to the agency were positive and showed effort. I think this is a great time to take this situation to another level and become a leader on the topic by making public as much information as they can about the situation, as often as it becomes available and publicly announcing what’s being done and what the public can do to feel safer. Maybe that’s in the works, but in the meantime, I think they’re doing a great job.

  • Via Government in the Lab: Controversial FDA Press Officer Finally Goes Away

    Before Martino arrived on the scene in March 2010, the Association of Health Care Journalists and ten other journalism organizations had already publicly criticized the FDA media operation for demanding that journalists and FDA employees obtain permission from higher-ups before an interview could take place. The FDA also imposed a policy that insisted that members of the press office be allowed to listen in on interviews.

    via govinthelab.com

    Just a quick reminder on the cardinal rule of the public information officer: don’t be the news!

    I don’t know the back story of this woman and her jousts with the media beyond the content of this article but if this is an accurate representation then I’m amazed. Take an agency with broad public health impacts and do everything possible to restrict access to the information being disseminated. This is good government? Open government? Who does this possibly serve (beyond the aforementioned press officer)?