What better time for trust, truth and transparency?

Interesting take from a New Yorker piece on the US' CDC's approach to communications during an epidemic.

Classic rules - trust; familiarity; expertise; clear and simple messages beginning and end; empathy; and above all, transparency. Seems pretty obvious really, so why is it so often a problem?

Here's a section I've grabbed - the full piece is in the New Yorker looking at the different approaches in Seattle and NY. (I can thoroughly recommend the New Yorker - like some many of us, it gets better with age....).

The C.D.C.’s Field Epidemiology Manual indicates that there should be a lead spokesperson whom the public gets to know—familiarity breeds trust. The spokesperson should have a “Single Overriding Health Communication Objective, or sohco (pronounced sock-O),” which should be repeated at the beginning and the end of any communication with the public. After the opening sohco, the spokesperson should “acknowledge concerns and express understanding of how those affected by the illnesses or injuries are probably feeling.” Such a gesture of empathy establishes common ground with scared and dubious citizens—who, because of their mistrust, can be at the highest risk for transmission. The spokesperson should make special efforts to explain both what is known and what is unknown. Transparency is essential, the field manual says, and officials must “not over-reassure or overpromise.”