This study examined the role of crisis advice appearing in US news coverage of the 2001 anthrax attacks. Coverage of any crisis can spark public outrage, including fear, speculation, and contradictory or confusing evidence, especially when the stories do not contain practical advice. Five coders analyzed 833 news stories from 272 major US newspapers, the Associated Press, National Public Radio, and 4 major US television networks. Practical advice appeared in only a quarter of the stories, even though practical advice for self-protection was mentioned 3 times more often than the vague advice that simply advised people not to panic. Public health officials provided the most practical advice, while scientists provided the least practical advice. Stories containing practical advice also provided more elucidating information, explaining why the threat was low, reducible, treatable, and detectable. Over the 3 phases of the anthrax crisis, an inverse relationship appeared between the amount of news coverage containing practical advice compared to "outrage rhetoric." Stories mentioned practical advice more often during the post-impact phase than earlier in the crisis. Elucidating, explanatory advice emphasized actions, risk comparisons, and tradeoffs. The findings indicate that when journalists use credible sources to provide practical advice and avoid speculation, their coverage can prevent the spread of misinformation and confusion during a bioterror attack. Also, journalists should provide context and sourcing when discussing advice during the outbreak and impact phases of the crisis, because these explanations could counteract outrage and threat distortion.