After Thursday’s hypothetical extraterrestrial situation, I became really curious on how we would actually respond to such an event. More specifically, I was intrigued by the best way to approach the media situation. What is the most important goal in such a circumstance: focusing solely on fixing the problem which in turn keeps the public ignorant or dedicating some time to keeping the public updated in order to conserve public image and maintain calm?
Obviously the main objective is solving the ambiguous and threatening issue at hand. Therefore, all possible effort should be put towards how to approach the aliens before and while they are on the White House lawn. However, this is going off the worst-case scenario: there’s no time to think of how current actions will affect the aftermath because we are working off the assumption that there might not be an aftermath. The distinction in the two approaches to the media issue begins here. Should we be assuming we will survive or should we make no assumptions and work solely towards survival?
In my opinion, we should choose the former: we should assume that there will be a world to come to after the extraterrestrials and that there will be people there to hold the government accountable for all that they did during the crisis. Without a doubt, maintaining a sense of calm will reduce a number of issues that might erupt if we did not take these precautions, which would ultimately save the government further trouble during this already threatening situation. Keeping the public informed is the best approach in comparison to the alternative of keeping them in the dark. In this case, ignorance is anything but bliss. In fact, it would simply be chaos and panic.
No comments:
Post a Comment