Sandman (1993) reconciles these two concerns by proposing that risk is a combination of danger (what is the real danger, what are the experts worried about) and indignation (what does the public) ). If danger is high but outrage is low, the public should be warned of the danger; if risk is low but outrage is high, the organization should recognize and address the outrage, not ignore it as unfounded (Sandman, 1993). • Communicate with honesty, candor and openness: Sellnow and Vidoloff (2009) state bluntly that “there is no substitute for truth in risk and crisis communication” (p. 41). The adage that “the truth will surface” applies in crisis situations, and being less than honest with the public and the media will inevitably backfire on the organization. Furthermore, not sharing information with the public, “responding with “no comment” responses or avoiding any interaction with the public or the press reveals a contemptuous attitude and implies guilt” (Sellnow and Vidoloff, 2009, p..