Media's power in setting the public’s agenda for discussion can affect perception and debate upon disasters. In the frame of a dialogical approach to science communication, we challenge here the paradigm for which issues that experts considered valuable are not in the Media's agenda. We studied the way Media addressed the Amatrice 2016 sequence and discuss story-telling. Specific indicators were analyzed to assess to what extent the scientific coverage, risk reduction and damage issues are covered. First results show that Media do think valuable to provide public with an in-depth scientific coverage and refers to authoritative sources. As time goes by and aftershocks Magnitude decreases a more reflexive thinking is triggered; news stories include more risk reduction indicators than damage. Although memory of past earthquakes is always part of the story one month after the main shock risk reduction disappear from the media agenda. We also explored the level of public engagement in risk reduction and found out that Media still seem not believe that citizens should be active part of the debate upon their own safety.