Community radio and the elephant conflict rumour
A community radio station in Wayanad has a 15-minute daily slot for a campaign on human-elephant conflict. In the past month, three people have died and two elephants have been killed in the district; WhatsApp rumours about elephant movement are spreading faster than official alerts. The station broadcasts in Malayalam with some Paniya phrases; many listeners have low literacy and rely on radio for weather and market prices. The forest department gives the station a one-page advisory but no audio clips. The station has two reporters, one recorder, and a volunteer group of farmers. The campaign must run for four weeks and reach at least 5,000 listeners. The station manager wants a message that is not panic-inducing but still changes behaviour at night. A local politician has offered to speak, but he is also a farmer who lost crops.
1. Design the 15-minute programme. Give a minute-by-minute plan and justify the order.
Read the worked answer
Minute 0–1: signature tune and a one-line promise: 'What to do if you see an elephant near your settlement - verified steps, not rumours.' 1–4: a short interview with a forest guard: where elephants moved in the last 24 hours, which paths to avoid at night. 4–7: a farmer's voice note describing a safe response (lights, noise, retreat, call the forest helpline) - local voice builds trust. 7–9: rumour check: read two WhatsApp claims and say what is unconfirmed, without repeating the claim as fact. 9–12: a Paniya-speaking volunteer explains the same steps in local phrases. 12–14: listener call-in or a pre-recorded question from a listener club. 14–15: repeat the helpline and the next broadcast time. Justification: the order follows crisis communication - immediate action first, context second, rumour control third, participation last. The local voice and language matter more than official jargon for low-literacy listeners.
2. The politician offers to speak. Do you accept? Explain.
Read the worked answer
Accept only with conditions, or decline. He is a farmer who lost crops, so he has credibility and lived experience; but he is also a politician, and listeners may hear the slot as a campaign. Conditions: 1) introduce him as 'a farmer from [ward] who is also a local politician'; 2) limit him to 2 minutes and to practical advice, not blame; 3) pair him with a forest official or a volunteer so no single voice dominates; 4) do not let him give out a personal number or party slogan; 5) pre-record and check for unverified claims. If he refuses the conditions, use a farmer from the volunteer group instead. Reasoning: development communication needs trust; a partisan voice can make the whole campaign sound like propaganda and reduce listeners' willingness to act on the safety message.
3. How would you evaluate whether the campaign changed behaviour?
Read the worked answer
Use three levels. 1) Reach: weekly listener diary with 30 households in four hamlets; compare with the station's call log. 2) Recall and understanding: a short pre/post survey with the same 60 listeners - ask 'what should you do if you see an elephant at night?' and score against the advisory's steps. 3) Behaviour: track calls to the forest helpline from the station's area, and ask volunteer farmers whether night travel changed. Also monitor rumours: count WhatsApp claims the station had to correct. Do not rely on call-in alone - it favours literate, confident listeners. Report the limits: four weeks is short, and a change in reported behaviour is not the same as observed behaviour. Reasoning: development communication is judged by outcomes, not airtime.