The Interacting Arguments of Risk Communication in Response to Terrorist Hoaxes

Abstract

Responding to terrorist hoaxes requires two arguments that “interact” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). First, responders have a plan in place, pre-established or spontaneously generated, that can mitigate or manage any crisis emerging from the threat. Second, responders must scrutinize available evidence in order to recognize and refute false claims at the earliest point possible. This study examines the risk communication of the New Zealand government's response to a bioterrorist hoax. The study reveals that effective hoax responses attack the source, reinterpret the claims made by the hoaxer, and acknowledge the value of what is threatened.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.