Media narratives¹ play a significant role in shaping how people perceive and understand the complex issues that influence our lives. These narratives help to convey intricate details and foster comprehension among the public. However, uncertainty complicates these narratives, forcing journalists to balance uncomfortably between accuracy and telling a compelling story. This balancing act often leads to challenges in maintaining the integrity of the information while still engaging the audience. When knowledge is limited and complexity is high, the media may amplify certain narratives and perspectives (Kasperson et al., 2022), influencing public opinion and subsequent decision-making.

Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty (DMDU) traditionally focuses less on narratives, but its methodologies support an account that uncertainty is actionable. DMDU communicates the implications of different scenarios by identifying key decision trade-offs and vulnerabilities, suggesting robust, flexible responses that perform well over a wide range of futures (Lempert et al., 2006; Marchau et al., 2014; Kwakkel et al., 2016). But because DMDU has traditionally emphasized technical details and quantitative analysis, its results can become overly complex and difficult to disseminate broadly.

This perspective explores the extent to which DMDU narratives regarding uncertainty can help journalists mitigate the tradeoff between accuracy and compelling storytelling. By crafting stories that include uncertainty as a fundamental theme, journalists can create engaging narratives that remain faithful to the complexities involved. Furthermore, understanding and informing media narratives can help DMDU practitioners craft more compelling stories about their own work.

We discuss and exemplify how DMDU practice transforms uncertainty into actionable information, motivating individuals and organizations to act despite inherent uncertainties. We then analyze, from the journalism practice perspective, the challenges associated with conveying complex information through narrative journalism and discuss examples of the strategies that journalists use to distill information effectively while maintaining accuracy and trust. Finally, we examine how the intersection between DMDU research and narrative journalism can foster a deeper understanding of complex issues, empowering the public to participate in informed discussions and advocate for effective policies.

Navigating complex systems under deep uncertainty² often leads to paralysis and political gridlock. DMDU methods address these challenges with multi-scenario, multi-objective analytic tools and processes of stakeholder engagement using these tools. DMDU analytics use simulation models to scan over large numbers of plausible futures, statistical algorithms to cluster those futures into policy-relevant scenarios, and then help identify actions policy makers can take that make sense over a wide range of futures. DMDU participatory stakeholder engagement helps frame the analyses, generate shared understanding of key tradeoffs, and build consensus on near-term actions. DMDU leverages the very ambiguity of these decision-making contexts to activate informed action (Lempert et al., 2006; Marchau et al., 2014).

DMDU computer assisted reasoning leads to the development of dynamic narratives based primarily on empirical findings. Exploratory modeling enables decision-makers and stakeholders to quantitatively assess the implication of vast arrays of different alternative futures. This experimental engagement goes beyond abstract risk assessments, injecting curiosity and a sense of agency into the decision-making process. Unlike unidimensional predictions, DMDU computational experimentation methods encourage exploration, prompting stakeholders to test their assumptions in different situations, despite the absence of certainty in prediction (Groves and Lempert, 2007; Bryant and Lempert, 2010; Kwakkel and Pruyt, 2013).

DMDU methods, like scenario discovery and adaptive pathways, leverage uncertainty to identify key tradeoffs in decision-making. By exploring vast arrays of uncertainties and courses of action, DMDU methods seek to identify key assumptions upon which different decisions are guaranteed. This “stress-testing” exposes unforeseen vulnerabilities and fosters adaptive planning (Bryant and Lempert, 2010; Moallemi et al., 2020). Studies that use DMDU methods often identify potential pitfalls and unintended consequences of status-quo actions. This often empowers stakeholders to refine the design of their policies and plans before committing to real-world implementation (Groves et al., 2019; Molina-Perez et al., 2019; Kalra et al., 2023; Moallemi et al., 2023). Empirical studies support these DMDU methods for making uncertainty actionable. For instance, presentations of climate information that emphasize intersection (e.g., that experts agree on a range of projections) and balance (e.g., avoid unwarranted precision) generate more confidence than presentations that emphasize disagreement over specific projections or seem overly precise (Benjamin and Budescu, 2018). Decision support tools that present uncertainty as a range of scenarios encourage users to seek more resilient strategies than decision support that present uncertainty with best-estimate probability distributions (Gong et al., 2017).

Existent literature in which DMDU methods and processes have been applied show that this analysis framework is conducive to construct actionable narratives that incentivize policy action. Table 1 summarizes four DMDU case studies. These four studies, despite their diverse contexts, collectively exemplify a narrative of uncertainty as actionable, revealing both commonalities and nuances in how they utilize DMDU methods to transform uncertainty into policy debate, re-design, and adaptation.

The four examples explicitly acknowledge and quantify uncertainty. In the pandemic response and Colorado River Basin studies, this involved modeling a wide range of scenarios to understand potential vulnerabilities and stress-test different strategies. The Israeli energy study embraced uncertainty by considering diverse plausible futures, while the decarbonization study quantified the relative importance of actions under varying conditions. This shared emphasis on quantification allows for more systematic decision-making under uncertainty. However, each case study operationalizes uncertainty differently. The pandemic response and Colorado River Basin studies focused on identifying vulnerabilities and evaluating targeted solutions, whereas the Israeli energy study prioritized the identification of robust strategies that perform well across diverse scenarios. The decarbonization study, on the other hand, emphasized the co-benefits of actions, making a compelling case for their implementation even under uncertain conditions. All studies highlight the importance of continuous learning and adaptation in the face of uncertainty. The pandemic response and Colorado River Basin studies explicitly recommend ongoing monitoring and evaluation to inform future decisions. The Israeli energy study emphasizes the need for strategies that are adaptable to changing conditions, while the decarbonization study underscores the importance of co-benefits in maintaining support for actions over time.

These four examples show how DMDU methods can lead to narratives where uncertainty is not a roadblock, but rather a steppingstone toward more informed, robust, and adaptive decision-making. In many respects, DMDU enables a process where it is possible to create a kaleidoscope of possible futures. By identifying “policy-relevant scenarios,” DMDU methods showcase diverse outcomes from multiple perspectives and dimensions of merit (Lempert et al., 2003; Haasnoot et al., 2013). ultimately equipping decision-makers with contingency plans and enabling them to navigate unexpected turns in a world in constant flux.

The inherent tension in journalism between the pursuit of accuracy and the creation of compelling narratives is amplified when reporting on complex and uncertain phenomena.³ The dilemma lies in the fact that achieving absolute accuracy can sometimes lead to stories that are too technical or complex for a broad audience to follow, diminishing their appeal and impact.

Scientific claims are often accompanied by significant uncertainties. Journalists face a critical decision point in how to incorporate this uncertainty into their reporting. Ignoring uncertainty and presenting scientific findings as absolute truths can mislead the public and create a false sense of security. Conversely, abstaining from reporting on uncertain topics can deprive the public of crucial information and hinder informed decision-making.

A balanced approach, incorporating rhetorical techniques or diverse perspectives, can effectively contextualize scientific claims within the broader landscape of uncertainty (Peters and Dunwoody, 2016). Journalists' decisions about how to include uncertainty are influenced by several factors:

Scientific claims in mass-media are often presented as more certain than would been described by the scientific community. This tendency can lead to an underestimation of risks (Peters and Dunwoody, 2016). In contrast, presenting conflicting scientific claims in media stories can lead to exaggerated audience perceptions of uncertainty (Kohl et al., 2016).

The motivations of various stakeholders, including scientists, representatives of companies, public interest groups, and government agencies, influence their willingness to talk about uncertainties. These motivations can be related to concerns about policy, public perception, or the potential consequences of acknowledging uncertainties (Post, 2016). Audience engagement also plays an important role (Besley et al., 2015). Comments and discussions by readers can alter the perceived meaning of stories, impacting the interpretation of uncertainty or certainty in the phenomenon being reported (Peters and Dunwoody, 2016).

Table 2 provides three examples of journalistic efforts to report on deeply uncertain phenomena. The three examples use distinct journalistic approaches to deal with uncertainty. The Greenland ice melt article acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in predicting future ice loss, emphasizing the consensus among scientists regarding the accelerated melting trend while transparently citing recent studies as the basis for its reporting. The COVID-19 death toll article explicitly grapples with the complexities of defining and measuring the pandemic's impact, presenting its own model for estimating excess deaths while openly discussing its limitations and potential biases. The article on polling uncertainty, on the other hand, focuses on the methodological challenges and potential inaccuracies in polling, quoting experts and citing studies to contextualize the issue.

While all three articles acknowledge the inherent uncertainty in their respective topics, the degree of transparency and depth of analysis varies. The Economist's COVID-19 article focusses on the methodological approach and its potential limitations, inviting scrutiny and potential improvement. The Greenland article, while citing scientific studies, does not delve into the methodological details as deeply. The polling article, while informative, focuses more on highlighting the issue of uncertainty rather than providing a comprehensive solution. This diversity reflects the complexity of reporting on uncertain topics and the importance of transparency and critical analysis in journalism.

Journalism on complex public policy issues requires continuous updating and adaptation, as well as meticulous fact-checking and compartmentalization of key facts (Dunwoody, 2020). Journalists play a pivotal role in creating a reporting space for uncertainty, allowing for the emergence of diverse perspectives and challenges to dominant narratives. While compelling narratives are essential for popular journalism, editorial decisions must be made to mediate uncertainty and complexity need to be made. This editorial expertise can be of great value for the dissemination of DMDU research (Duffy, 2021).

The fields of DMDU and journalism have valuable lessons each can offer to the other. For journalists grappling with the challenge of telling a crisp and accurate story amidst contested and inherently uncertain facts, DMDU offers a narrative of managing as opposed to reducing deep uncertainty. Rather than recounting a search for the truth, the narrative focuses on a recognition of inevitable surprise and skillful navigation (or the lack thereof) in the face of this reality. DMDU narratives highlight virtues that include a willingness to embrace uncertainty, humility about one's understanding, adaptability as conditions change, and finding certainty in robust and resilient plans rather than in any conviction that the world will behave as we expect.

DMDU suggests key themes journalists might explore in crafting narratives about uncertainty. The first is due diligence—to what extent do decision makers understand the vulnerabilities of their plans by having stress tested them over a wide range of futures? DMDU suggests that all policies are based in assumptions and many assumptions can potentially fail. Journalists can inquire whether decision makers have identified the conditions under which their plans will meet and miss their goals.

DMDU also encourages journalists to highlight the implications of high confidence information and the areas of agreement among contesting parties. For instance, DMDU uses high confidence information to identify scenarios that all can agree are policy-relevant, even if there exists significant disagreement as to their likelihood. In a typical example, all parties might agree that power plant near the shoreline would become inoperable if sea level rise exceeds one meter. But some might regard the likelihood of such a rise this century as too small to consider while others might see a much larger risk. Journalists can weaver a story around this disagreement while making clear that all would regard a meter of sea level rise as problematic.

Finally, DMDU encourages journalists to examine the extent to which decision makers have made uncertainty actionable—crafting policies that are robust and resilient. To what extent are policies designed to achieve their goals when things, as they often do, go wrong? Do decision makers exercise the necessary adaptiveness and flexibility? Assuming decision makers understand the futures in which their plans meet and miss their goals, can they describe how they are monitoring for such conditions? Have decision makers articulated what they will do if such conditions arise? Can decision makers explain why the balance of risks and opportunities in the plan they propose outweigh those of the alternatives?

DMDU practitioners seeking policy impact from their analyses can gain guidance from journalists' need to balance accuracy with compelling narratives. DMDU practitioners can emphasize the certainties that emerge from their analyses alongside the uncertainties. Practitioners can tell stories about making uncertainty actionable, using the embrace of uncertainty to motivate robust and resilient responses. They can tell stories about the process of going from uncertainty about what will happen to certainty about vulnerabilities and the best responses to them. Practitioners can describe how the analysis addresses the concerns and interests of various contesting parties to the policy debate. As will any good policy analysis, DMDU practitioners can also emphasize the concrete policy implications of their work.

DMDU practitioners and journalists, despite operating in different fields, share a crucial common challenge: making complex information understandable, engaging, and useful for decision-making. Borrowing practices from journalists, DMDU practitioners can improve their delivery of DMDU analyses. To enable this, we identify three key areas for future research and work:

Progress in these areas can help the DMDU community apply systematically journalist-inspired approaches to deal with uncertainty. This can effectively help improve how DMDU findings are communicated, fostering trust and transparency, encouraging critical thinking, and enabling wider public engagement with DMDU findings.