Here's the complete text of AP Corporate Communications representative Jack Stoke's response to my February 25 e-mail:
"We've consulted with the appropriate people here and designated our bureau chief in Hawaii to respond to your query."
I'm looking forward to hearing from bureau chief David Briscoe, who sent an e-mail suggesting I telephone him. I wrote him today as follows:
David, thanks for your note. Since the Associated Press’s New York office has designated you as the conveyor of the organization’s view on this matter, I look forward to seeing what it is.
To review the issue, many observers have remarked since immediately after the December 26 tsunami that the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center did not attempt to communicate an urgent tsunami warning to the international news media with networks that reach into the Indian Ocean region.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s timeline of post-tsunami events suggests that had a message gone through pre-arranged and rehearsed channels to the major news media and had the media been prepared to recognize the urgency of the warning, tens of thousands of lives might have been saved.
In other words, we’re talking about whether lives were lost because there was no pre-arranged protocol or standard operating procedure that includes transmitting potentially life-saving messages to the major media, including the AP, CNN and other organizations.
The question is whether the AP sees a role for itself in mitigating future tragedies on the scale of the Indian Ocean tsunami. The AP certainly does participate in facilitating warnings when Mount St. Helens rumbles, when hurricanes bear down on Florida and when storms result in flash flooding in the Southwest, so it is inconceivable to me that improving communications channels to send tsunami warnings would be an inappropriate media role.
We are not suggesting the media should become a “partner” with the government; that would be anathema to journalists. What we do think appropriate would be conversations involving representatives of the AP, CNN, other media and NOAA on how government scientists can effectively communicate their urgent messages when they suspect a tsunami has been generated. As I said in our phone call on Friday, the fact that the AP publishes its numbers in telephone books is demonstration enough that it willingly enables newsmakers to conveniently communicate their information.
Congress is likely to endorse proactive media contact by NOAA’s agencies when it passes S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act (see 2/12 post on my web log, linked below), and NOAA will undoubtedly react appropriately. What I’m asking the AP to do is help close the gap – in the spirit of avoiding or reducing human casualties – by instructing NOAA on which communications channels it should use for future tsunami warnings.
Because the views you express on this issue will be the AP’s official response, a telephone conversation would seem to be too informal. I respectfully request that you convey AP’s position in writing for the record, and then we can discuss our views if you like. I’ve cc’d Kathleen Carroll on this message in an attempt to reach above the AP's Corporate Communications management level.
Aloha, Doug
--
Doug Carlson
(web log address)
BTW, a mutual recognition that we both have a good understanding of journalism ethics and practices may help our communication. Here are excerpts from my bio:
Journalism
Reported or edited for The Honolulu Advertiser; KGMB-TV in Honolulu; The Chicago Daily News and Westinghouse Broadcasting Company all-news radio stations in Philadelphia (KYW) and Los Angeles (KFWB). Earned bachelors and masters degrees in journalism from the University of Iowa and Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism respectively.
Corporate Manager
Managed Hawaiian Electric Company’s communications programs and served as spokesperson 1981-1989. Responsible for media and community relations, crisis communications, internal communications, financial and customer publications, advertising and video production. Recognized by the Hawaii chapters of Toastmasters International ("Silver Gavel") and the Public Relations Society of America ("Koa Anvil for Emergency Public Relations").
Sunday, February 27, 2005
Friday, February 25, 2005
News Media Call #2 Goes to the Associated Press
The Associated Press's web portal doesn't easily reveal senior management identities. Only the Broadcast Service lists executives' names and numbers, but my call there was directed to New York's international desk, which passed me on to Corporate Communications. There I was told to send my concerns to info@ap.org. Despite misgivings about using such a generic address, I'm trusting that Jack Stokes in Corporate Communications will be on it. Here's my e-mail:
Good talking with you. As noted during our call, my web log (below) has concluded that the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center did not have usable crisis communications protocols in place (and probably still doesn’t) when the December 26 earthquake hit that would have enabled it to issue a usable tsunami warning via the AP, CNN, BBC, etc. Instead of calling the media at a high enough level to initiate a bulletin to the region, scientists are on record as having picked up their phones and called friends and colleagues in the Indian Ocean region starting about an hour before the waves reached Sri Lanka and India. A UPI story carried in the Washington Times and elsewhere on January 7 quoted a NOAA spokeswoman as saying the Center doesn't even maintain a list of media contacts. (See my blog’s January 8 post.)
I submitted testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation re S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act, which was offered by Sen. Daniel Inouye and Sen. Ted Stevens (see 2/1 post). I subsequently posted a suggestion to improve the bill’s existing language to specifically include “international news media networks with instantaneous transmission capabilities” in the list of communications channels NOAA would be instructed to use in future emergencies (see 2/12). (My 1/13 post has my so-called bona fides to offer these suggestions and criticisms.)
NOAA representatives have been attending conferences all over the world on establishing tsunami warning networks (Tokyo today, Paris next month). They also should make plans to meet with executives of CNN, AP and other news organizations to establish “flash-point” communications protocols. And if NOAA isn’t inclined to initiate those meetings, I would hope the major media would approach NOAA to start the necessary planning.
I look forward to staying in touch and would be pleased if my web log observations contribute to a workable crisis communications plan that involves The Associated Press. Once you read this, I’d welcome a response on which executive would be most inclined to carry the ball for the AP.
I should note here that I'm not suggesting the AP should crawl into bed with NOAA and become part of the government's news-generating apparatus. That would be objectionable to any news person, but it surely would be legitimate for the AP and other major media to discuss with NOAA how it can efficiently connect with the media when minutes matter -- as they did on December 26.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 25, 2005
Good talking with you. As noted during our call, my web log (below) has concluded that the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center did not have usable crisis communications protocols in place (and probably still doesn’t) when the December 26 earthquake hit that would have enabled it to issue a usable tsunami warning via the AP, CNN, BBC, etc. Instead of calling the media at a high enough level to initiate a bulletin to the region, scientists are on record as having picked up their phones and called friends and colleagues in the Indian Ocean region starting about an hour before the waves reached Sri Lanka and India. A UPI story carried in the Washington Times and elsewhere on January 7 quoted a NOAA spokeswoman as saying the Center doesn't even maintain a list of media contacts. (See my blog’s January 8 post.)
I submitted testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation re S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act, which was offered by Sen. Daniel Inouye and Sen. Ted Stevens (see 2/1 post). I subsequently posted a suggestion to improve the bill’s existing language to specifically include “international news media networks with instantaneous transmission capabilities” in the list of communications channels NOAA would be instructed to use in future emergencies (see 2/12). (My 1/13 post has my so-called bona fides to offer these suggestions and criticisms.)
NOAA representatives have been attending conferences all over the world on establishing tsunami warning networks (Tokyo today, Paris next month). They also should make plans to meet with executives of CNN, AP and other news organizations to establish “flash-point” communications protocols. And if NOAA isn’t inclined to initiate those meetings, I would hope the major media would approach NOAA to start the necessary planning.
I look forward to staying in touch and would be pleased if my web log observations contribute to a workable crisis communications plan that involves The Associated Press. Once you read this, I’d welcome a response on which executive would be most inclined to carry the ball for the AP.
I should note here that I'm not suggesting the AP should crawl into bed with NOAA and become part of the government's news-generating apparatus. That would be objectionable to any news person, but it surely would be legitimate for the AP and other major media to discuss with NOAA how it can efficiently connect with the media when minutes matter -- as they did on December 26.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 25, 2005
Thursday, February 24, 2005
News Media Call #1 Goes to CNN International
I guess frustration showed in yesterday's post, and now I'm forced to contact the media myself or eat my words.
In fairness to NOAA, the agency may be disinclined to reach out to the news media to discuss new tsunami warning protocols because of what that might imply -- recognition, perhaps, that more could have been done to warn the Indian Ocean region before the December 26 waves reached some nations.
And then there's the alleged tsunami victims' lawsuit that was announced at a Vienna, Austria press conference on February 15th. Since the initial story, which was published at numerous on-line sites, there's been no further on-line coverage about it, but the threat might be enough to squelch NOAA comment and initiative.
Therefore, as noted yesterday, it's time for individual action. My media search began at CNN's web site, which helpfully provides links to bios of anchors, correspondents and executives. Working down the alpha list of executives, it took only three hits to reach Chris Cramer, managing director of CNN International.
Assistant Danette Johnson took my call and heard me out as I outlined my premise (see heading above), and she responded with encouraging news. She said CNN and other organizations are in fact sorting out what their role is in the communications chain between NOAA agencies and distant populations. I followed up with a fairly long e-mail to her referencing my Senate testimony on S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act, and subsequent suggestion to improve the bill by specifically mentioning the international news media among communications channels to be used for future tsunami warnings.
Suggestion to CNN: Propose a high-level summit involving the senior leadership of CNN, the Associated Press and NOAA to agree on the need for new crisis communications protocols -- details to be hammered out later.
Tomorrow, the Associated Press.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 24, 2005
In fairness to NOAA, the agency may be disinclined to reach out to the news media to discuss new tsunami warning protocols because of what that might imply -- recognition, perhaps, that more could have been done to warn the Indian Ocean region before the December 26 waves reached some nations.
And then there's the alleged tsunami victims' lawsuit that was announced at a Vienna, Austria press conference on February 15th. Since the initial story, which was published at numerous on-line sites, there's been no further on-line coverage about it, but the threat might be enough to squelch NOAA comment and initiative.
Therefore, as noted yesterday, it's time for individual action. My media search began at CNN's web site, which helpfully provides links to bios of anchors, correspondents and executives. Working down the alpha list of executives, it took only three hits to reach Chris Cramer, managing director of CNN International.
Assistant Danette Johnson took my call and heard me out as I outlined my premise (see heading above), and she responded with encouraging news. She said CNN and other organizations are in fact sorting out what their role is in the communications chain between NOAA agencies and distant populations. I followed up with a fairly long e-mail to her referencing my Senate testimony on S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act, and subsequent suggestion to improve the bill by specifically mentioning the international news media among communications channels to be used for future tsunami warnings.
Suggestion to CNN: Propose a high-level summit involving the senior leadership of CNN, the Associated Press and NOAA to agree on the need for new crisis communications protocols -- details to be hammered out later.
Tomorrow, the Associated Press.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 24, 2005
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Wait Goes On for NOAA To Acknowledge the News Media's Role in Tsunami Warnings
Help me out here. There’s only so much reading anyone can do on the web. What I want to know is:
Has anyone anywhere read anything by any NOAA spokesperson that even hints the agency believes the news media should be telephoned when a killer tsunami is thought to have been generated?
We’ve read about automatic e-mailed bulletins. We’ve read about the proposed high-tech warning system for the Indian Ocean. We’ve read about all of that, but we haven’t read anything about low-tech telephone calls to the media!
And wouldn’t you think by now someone within NOAA would have publicly acknowledged the media’s role is transmitting tsunami warnings? Or have I just missed it?
If so, please point me to the story in which a NOAA spokesperson is on record saying something like: “We have reviewed our crisis communications protocols and will ensure that proactive telephonic contact with the major news media will be used when we have reason to believe a life-threatening tsunami has been generated anywhere on the planet.”
Or would that be too low-tech for scientists? Is there something about making a telephone call to a news organization that is just too far outside the scientific method for scientists?
I can’t believe that’s the case, but I’m beginning to wonder, because it keeps not coming up.
Take yesterday’s page 1 story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: “Isle scientists work to expand tsunami alerts; Warnings about large earthquakes will be sent to Indian Ocean nations that agree to plug in”. (The headline writer got it right: the story’s focus is on electronic devices that will automatically transmit data to countries that are “plugged in” to a high-tech system.)
In a 791-word article in which a veteran journalist known for her thorough reporting quotes various NOAA and University of Hawaii scientists and spokespersons, the word “media” appears not once. New tsunami information centers are mentioned, tide gauges are mentioned and another trip by NOAA representatives to another meeting on tsunami warning and mitigation is mentioned (Paris, March 3-8), but nobody mentions the proverbial “elephant in the living room” – the fact that a telephone call to international news media might have spared many lives in the Indian Ocean region on December 26.
It’s Time to Call the Media
Since we don’t know whether NOAA has contacted the Associated Press and CNN to bring them aboard for the next tsunami alert, let’s assume it hasn’t. There’s no evidence to the contrary.
I’ll start making calls and writing letters and will report here on what happens. This will either be a humbling experience (“Who’s calling, from where and why, and I'm sorry, Mr. Big is in a meeting.”) or a productive one.
I’m counting on senior news managers and policy makers to endorse the media's obvious and traditional role in alerting distant populations to critical information – populations that could learn of tsunami warnings from cable television channels and radio broadcasts.
I'm counting on them to be the mountain that calls on NOAA if NOAA won't call on them.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 22, 2005
Has anyone anywhere read anything by any NOAA spokesperson that even hints the agency believes the news media should be telephoned when a killer tsunami is thought to have been generated?
We’ve read about automatic e-mailed bulletins. We’ve read about the proposed high-tech warning system for the Indian Ocean. We’ve read about all of that, but we haven’t read anything about low-tech telephone calls to the media!
And wouldn’t you think by now someone within NOAA would have publicly acknowledged the media’s role is transmitting tsunami warnings? Or have I just missed it?
If so, please point me to the story in which a NOAA spokesperson is on record saying something like: “We have reviewed our crisis communications protocols and will ensure that proactive telephonic contact with the major news media will be used when we have reason to believe a life-threatening tsunami has been generated anywhere on the planet.”
Or would that be too low-tech for scientists? Is there something about making a telephone call to a news organization that is just too far outside the scientific method for scientists?
I can’t believe that’s the case, but I’m beginning to wonder, because it keeps not coming up.
Take yesterday’s page 1 story in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin: “Isle scientists work to expand tsunami alerts; Warnings about large earthquakes will be sent to Indian Ocean nations that agree to plug in”. (The headline writer got it right: the story’s focus is on electronic devices that will automatically transmit data to countries that are “plugged in” to a high-tech system.)
In a 791-word article in which a veteran journalist known for her thorough reporting quotes various NOAA and University of Hawaii scientists and spokespersons, the word “media” appears not once. New tsunami information centers are mentioned, tide gauges are mentioned and another trip by NOAA representatives to another meeting on tsunami warning and mitigation is mentioned (Paris, March 3-8), but nobody mentions the proverbial “elephant in the living room” – the fact that a telephone call to international news media might have spared many lives in the Indian Ocean region on December 26.
It’s Time to Call the Media
Since we don’t know whether NOAA has contacted the Associated Press and CNN to bring them aboard for the next tsunami alert, let’s assume it hasn’t. There’s no evidence to the contrary.
I’ll start making calls and writing letters and will report here on what happens. This will either be a humbling experience (“Who’s calling, from where and why, and I'm sorry, Mr. Big is in a meeting.”) or a productive one.
I’m counting on senior news managers and policy makers to endorse the media's obvious and traditional role in alerting distant populations to critical information – populations that could learn of tsunami warnings from cable television channels and radio broadcasts.
I'm counting on them to be the mountain that calls on NOAA if NOAA won't call on them.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 22, 2005
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Japan, U.S. To Expand Tsunami Warnings; Also, What to Make of the Tsunami Victims' Lawsuit
An Associated Press story is all over the internet today reporting that Japan and the United States will issue tsunami warnings to Indian Ocean countries “as a stopgap measure” until the region develops its own alert system.
The story doesn't say how those warnings will be generated, although there's a strong suggestion the methodology will be high-tech: “Japan and the United States have the world's most advanced warning systems. Japan's network of fiber-optic sensors feeds seismic activity data to a supercomputer, which can issue a warning of a deadly tsunami within minutes of a quake.”
Eight weeks after the tsunami tragedy, it's clear NOAA must revamp its crisis communications planning to involve the major international news organizations in issuing warnings once tsunamis are suspected. Low-tech phone calls -- had they been made to the major media on December 26 -- would have been nearly as fast as instantaneous electronic bulletins, and without question they would have been more effective. This blog's February 12 post proposed an improvement to S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act: Engage the major international news organizations in issuing warnings. That didn't happen on December 26.
The Lawsuit
News broke earlier this week that two attorneys intend to file a lawsuit on behalf of the Indian Ocean tsunami victims. The allegation will be that the defendants -- French hotel chain Accor, the Thai government and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii -- failed to warn the victims of the approaching tsunami.
NOAA isn't commenting until the lawsuit is filed, but the action undoubtedly has the agency's attention. One of the plaintiffs' attorneys is Ed Fagan of New York, whose legal history can be found in dozens of on-line stories that describe him as flamboyant, controversial and at times spectacularly effective. Fagan takes on the big causes; he extracted $1.2 billion from Swiss banks on behalf of Holocaust victims, and his other headline-making cases have targeted apartheid, slave labor, nuclear power plant accidents, "mad cow disease" and the like.
This case could turn into a wild ride for NOAA.
Call from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
As noted in earlier posts, an invitation to visit the Center has been anticipated since the suggestion was first made on February 3 by a NOAA representative. Dr. Charles McCreery, PTWC director, called this week and said a visit should occur in late March after he returns from another trip. We discussed the general premise of this web log; he listened and I listened during what amounted to a good conversation on how the media might be integrated differently in future tsunami warnings. It also seems likely that representatives of the Hawaii congressional delegation will be invited.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 17, 2005
The story doesn't say how those warnings will be generated, although there's a strong suggestion the methodology will be high-tech: “Japan and the United States have the world's most advanced warning systems. Japan's network of fiber-optic sensors feeds seismic activity data to a supercomputer, which can issue a warning of a deadly tsunami within minutes of a quake.”
Eight weeks after the tsunami tragedy, it's clear NOAA must revamp its crisis communications planning to involve the major international news organizations in issuing warnings once tsunamis are suspected. Low-tech phone calls -- had they been made to the major media on December 26 -- would have been nearly as fast as instantaneous electronic bulletins, and without question they would have been more effective. This blog's February 12 post proposed an improvement to S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act: Engage the major international news organizations in issuing warnings. That didn't happen on December 26.
The Lawsuit
News broke earlier this week that two attorneys intend to file a lawsuit on behalf of the Indian Ocean tsunami victims. The allegation will be that the defendants -- French hotel chain Accor, the Thai government and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii -- failed to warn the victims of the approaching tsunami.
NOAA isn't commenting until the lawsuit is filed, but the action undoubtedly has the agency's attention. One of the plaintiffs' attorneys is Ed Fagan of New York, whose legal history can be found in dozens of on-line stories that describe him as flamboyant, controversial and at times spectacularly effective. Fagan takes on the big causes; he extracted $1.2 billion from Swiss banks on behalf of Holocaust victims, and his other headline-making cases have targeted apartheid, slave labor, nuclear power plant accidents, "mad cow disease" and the like.
This case could turn into a wild ride for NOAA.
Call from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center
As noted in earlier posts, an invitation to visit the Center has been anticipated since the suggestion was first made on February 3 by a NOAA representative. Dr. Charles McCreery, PTWC director, called this week and said a visit should occur in late March after he returns from another trip. We discussed the general premise of this web log; he listened and I listened during what amounted to a good conversation on how the media might be integrated differently in future tsunami warnings. It also seems likely that representatives of the Hawaii congressional delegation will be invited.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 17, 2005
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Improving S.50, the Tsunami Preparedness Act
As a response to the December 26 tragedy, the Tsunami Preparedness Act (S.50) has much to recommend it and is hard not to like (access the text at thomas.loc.gov and enter the bill number). Nevertheless, the bill can be improved by specifically mentioning the role of the international news media in transmitting tsunami warnings, which it does not do in its present form.
This web log is focused on one small piece of the tsunami picture -- the critical need for NOAA and its agencies to issue useful tsunami warnings through existing media channels. The Associated Press, CNN and other international news organizations with globe-circling networks and instantaneous communications capabilities were not telephoned with urgent voice messages on December 26, even though Pacific Tsunami Warning Center scientists did call their colleagues in the Indian Ocean region about the suspected tsunami.
It's impossible to know how many lives might have been saved if an effective media warning had been issued. As NOAA's representatives testified at the February 2nd Senate hearing on S.50, populations in threatened areas need to be educated on how to react to a tsunami warning. But regardless of the readiness of local communities, effective warnings must be generated, and it is this web log's belief that existing media can be activated quickly toward that end.
Doing so will require crisis communications protocols to be in place, coordinated, rehearsed and implemented in future tsunamis. We civilians still don't know what's in NOAA's communications protocols, despite our January 27 request for a copy of its crisis communications plan (see 1/27 post). We'll undoubtedly learn much about those plans if NOAA does issue the invitation to visit the Hawaii Center, as we've been told it will (2/3 post).
How, then, can S.50 be improved? It should specifically mention the role of the international news media in transmitting tsunami warnings to areas endangered by tsunamis.
As currently written, Section 5, Tsunami Research Program, broadly addresses communications in paragraph (b), Communications Technology: The Administrator, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the Federal Communications Commission, shall investigate the potential for improved communications systems for tsunami and other hazard warnings by incorporating into the existing network a full range of options for providing those warnings to the public, including, as appropriate--
(1) telephones, including special alert rings;
(2) wireless and satellite technology, including cellular telephones and pagers;
(3) the Internet, including e-mail;
(4) automatic alert televisions and radios;
(5) innovative and low-cost combinations of such technologies that may provide access to remote areas; and
(6) other technologies that may be developed.
I suggest renumbering this list by inserting a new subparagraph:
(5) international news media networks with instantaneous transmission capabilities;
This would be an unambiguous directive to NOAA and its agencies to think outside the high-tech box and, as subparagraph (1) suggests, pick up the telephone to get the attention of news media gatekeepers when minutes matter.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 12, 2005
This web log is focused on one small piece of the tsunami picture -- the critical need for NOAA and its agencies to issue useful tsunami warnings through existing media channels. The Associated Press, CNN and other international news organizations with globe-circling networks and instantaneous communications capabilities were not telephoned with urgent voice messages on December 26, even though Pacific Tsunami Warning Center scientists did call their colleagues in the Indian Ocean region about the suspected tsunami.
It's impossible to know how many lives might have been saved if an effective media warning had been issued. As NOAA's representatives testified at the February 2nd Senate hearing on S.50, populations in threatened areas need to be educated on how to react to a tsunami warning. But regardless of the readiness of local communities, effective warnings must be generated, and it is this web log's belief that existing media can be activated quickly toward that end.
Doing so will require crisis communications protocols to be in place, coordinated, rehearsed and implemented in future tsunamis. We civilians still don't know what's in NOAA's communications protocols, despite our January 27 request for a copy of its crisis communications plan (see 1/27 post). We'll undoubtedly learn much about those plans if NOAA does issue the invitation to visit the Hawaii Center, as we've been told it will (2/3 post).
How, then, can S.50 be improved? It should specifically mention the role of the international news media in transmitting tsunami warnings to areas endangered by tsunamis.
As currently written, Section 5, Tsunami Research Program, broadly addresses communications in paragraph (b), Communications Technology: The Administrator, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the Federal Communications Commission, shall investigate the potential for improved communications systems for tsunami and other hazard warnings by incorporating into the existing network a full range of options for providing those warnings to the public, including, as appropriate--
(1) telephones, including special alert rings;
(2) wireless and satellite technology, including cellular telephones and pagers;
(3) the Internet, including e-mail;
(4) automatic alert televisions and radios;
(5) innovative and low-cost combinations of such technologies that may provide access to remote areas; and
(6) other technologies that may be developed.
I suggest renumbering this list by inserting a new subparagraph:
(5) international news media networks with instantaneous transmission capabilities;
This would be an unambiguous directive to NOAA and its agencies to think outside the high-tech box and, as subparagraph (1) suggests, pick up the telephone to get the attention of news media gatekeepers when minutes matter.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 12, 2005
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Scientists Support Communications as Means to "Get the Word Out"; Invitation Still in the Works
The latest from NOAA is that the invitation mentioned in a February 3 post to visit the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center awaits confirmation on possible dates. I have asked NOAA to include representatives of Hawaii's congressional delegation in the visit, but there is no confirmation of that possibility as of yet.
In the meantime, it was encouraging to read an on-line report at the news@nature.com ("the best in science journalism") web site on a meeting of environmental scientists held in Washington, DC, last week. Headlined Environmental scientists told to 'get the word out', the story noted:
"Scientists knew about December's Indian Ocean earthquake within minutes of it happening. Yet no formal alert was sounded and the resultant tsunami killed hundreds of thousands."
According to the story, participants advocated greater openness among scientists in communicating the results of their work to the public at large. "All the technology in the world doesn't do a lot of good if you can't get the word out," said Charles Groat, director of the United States Geological Survey.
It is especially encouraging to see this quote from Dr. Groat. Two days after the tsunami a member of the U.S. Geological Survey staff was reported by National Public Radio as saying, "There was no system set up by which we could take that information and translate it into actions that the public could react to."
In light of Dr. Groat's recent comments, perhaps NOAA officials are warming to the use of the news media in issuing timely and effective tsunami warnings to affected populations.
Elsewhere in the story, Anthony Michaels, director of the Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Southern California, said the tsunami disaster highlighted the need for more communication by scientists. The story concludes:
Younger scientists are being trained in communicating science to the public and see it as a rewarding part of their job, says Michaels. "We are new to this kind of dynamic, and in some ways we are not well suited to it," he says. "The leadership at the universities and the young people are on board...and then you have all these old farts in between."
I trust I'll find none of the latter at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 8, 2005
www.DougCarlsonCommunications.com
In the meantime, it was encouraging to read an on-line report at the news@nature.com ("the best in science journalism") web site on a meeting of environmental scientists held in Washington, DC, last week. Headlined Environmental scientists told to 'get the word out', the story noted:
"Scientists knew about December's Indian Ocean earthquake within minutes of it happening. Yet no formal alert was sounded and the resultant tsunami killed hundreds of thousands."
According to the story, participants advocated greater openness among scientists in communicating the results of their work to the public at large. "All the technology in the world doesn't do a lot of good if you can't get the word out," said Charles Groat, director of the United States Geological Survey.
It is especially encouraging to see this quote from Dr. Groat. Two days after the tsunami a member of the U.S. Geological Survey staff was reported by National Public Radio as saying, "There was no system set up by which we could take that information and translate it into actions that the public could react to."
In light of Dr. Groat's recent comments, perhaps NOAA officials are warming to the use of the news media in issuing timely and effective tsunami warnings to affected populations.
Elsewhere in the story, Anthony Michaels, director of the Wrigley Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Southern California, said the tsunami disaster highlighted the need for more communication by scientists. The story concludes:
Younger scientists are being trained in communicating science to the public and see it as a rewarding part of their job, says Michaels. "We are new to this kind of dynamic, and in some ways we are not well suited to it," he says. "The leadership at the universities and the young people are on board...and then you have all these old farts in between."
I trust I'll find none of the latter at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 8, 2005
www.DougCarlsonCommunications.com
Thursday, February 03, 2005
NOAA May Issue an Invitation
As relayed in a call from a NOAA representative in Silver Springs, MD, an invitation is coming for this writer to visit the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and meet with its staff. No doubt we’ll exchange views and information not previously known to one another, and it should be a valuable experience -- at least for me.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 3, 2005
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 3, 2005
Upon Further Review: NOAA Seems Reluctant to Publicly Acknowledge Media's Critical Role
Yesterday’s enthusiasm over the Senate hearing is tempered somewhat by a careful reading of the prepared testimony presented for the committee’s record.
For example, although there've been five weeks of public comment and criticism of NOAA and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center for not issuing an effective tsunami warning via the news media, the word “media” appears exactly once in the prepared testimony of NOAA Administrator Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr. (U.S. Navy, Ret.). The testimony refers only to “international media” reports on the tsunami’s destruction. (Among all the witnesses, only the prepared testimony of Eileen Shea of Honolulu’s East-West Center mentioned “media” as a participant in disseminating warnings: “As we move forward, we also need to more effectively engage the media as a critical component of an effective, comprehensive risk management information system.”)
“News” shows up once, also referring to post-tsunami “news reports”. Perhaps the world’s most ubiquitous communications tool -- “radio” – appears nowhere in his testimony. It’s ironic to note that when witnesses and experts speak of “wireless” communications, they’re referring to the relatively recent technologies of cellular phones and digital communications devices. Our grandparents called radio the “wireless”.
“Television” also is a no-show even though CNN, BBC and News World International among other networks transmit news to television sets all over the planet. “Cable” refers in three places to “cabled buoys” anchored in the ocean to detect tsunamis.
In his testimony, Lautenbacher bangs away on the theme that sending a warning to the Indian Ocean isn’t NOAA’s job. Page 4 alone contains the following within the space of four paragraphs: “It is not the Center’s responsibility to issue local tsunami warnings from seismic events outside of the United States.” “NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers have no authority or responsibility to issue tsunami warnings for the Indian Ocean basin.” “As the Indian Ocean is outside the NOAA tsunami area of responsibility, NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers have no procedures in place to issue a warning for this region.”
The last statement is why this web log was created on January 2. It was apparent from media reports immediately after the tsunami that no procedures exist to issue warnings to far-flung areas of the world.
Yes, local education is critical for populations to know what to do when a warning arrives, and yes, an effective tsunami warning system requires “an established local communications infrastructure for timely and effective dissemination of the warning and evacuation requirements” (page 5). But who else besides NOAA is qualified to get the word to those “local” communicators by engaging the international news media?
“It’s not my job” may have been the Rodriguez family motto on “Chico & the Man”, but that mentality doesn't contribute to saving lives. NOAA should consider shifting from its inside-the-Pacific-Rim-box thinking and accept responsibilities that it alone apparently is capable of assuming.
That would be an inspiration to the world.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 3, 2005
For example, although there've been five weeks of public comment and criticism of NOAA and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center for not issuing an effective tsunami warning via the news media, the word “media” appears exactly once in the prepared testimony of NOAA Administrator Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr. (U.S. Navy, Ret.). The testimony refers only to “international media” reports on the tsunami’s destruction. (Among all the witnesses, only the prepared testimony of Eileen Shea of Honolulu’s East-West Center mentioned “media” as a participant in disseminating warnings: “As we move forward, we also need to more effectively engage the media as a critical component of an effective, comprehensive risk management information system.”)
“News” shows up once, also referring to post-tsunami “news reports”. Perhaps the world’s most ubiquitous communications tool -- “radio” – appears nowhere in his testimony. It’s ironic to note that when witnesses and experts speak of “wireless” communications, they’re referring to the relatively recent technologies of cellular phones and digital communications devices. Our grandparents called radio the “wireless”.
“Television” also is a no-show even though CNN, BBC and News World International among other networks transmit news to television sets all over the planet. “Cable” refers in three places to “cabled buoys” anchored in the ocean to detect tsunamis.
In his testimony, Lautenbacher bangs away on the theme that sending a warning to the Indian Ocean isn’t NOAA’s job. Page 4 alone contains the following within the space of four paragraphs: “It is not the Center’s responsibility to issue local tsunami warnings from seismic events outside of the United States.” “NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers have no authority or responsibility to issue tsunami warnings for the Indian Ocean basin.” “As the Indian Ocean is outside the NOAA tsunami area of responsibility, NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers have no procedures in place to issue a warning for this region.”
The last statement is why this web log was created on January 2. It was apparent from media reports immediately after the tsunami that no procedures exist to issue warnings to far-flung areas of the world.
Yes, local education is critical for populations to know what to do when a warning arrives, and yes, an effective tsunami warning system requires “an established local communications infrastructure for timely and effective dissemination of the warning and evacuation requirements” (page 5). But who else besides NOAA is qualified to get the word to those “local” communicators by engaging the international news media?
“It’s not my job” may have been the Rodriguez family motto on “Chico & the Man”, but that mentality doesn't contribute to saving lives. NOAA should consider shifting from its inside-the-Pacific-Rim-box thinking and accept responsibilities that it alone apparently is capable of assuming.
That would be an inspiration to the world.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 3, 2005
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Senators Appear To Support Concept of Media Involvement in Tsunami Warnings
The hearing conducted today by the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation had some positive exchanges that appeared to reveal committee support for including the media in NOAA's tsunami warning plans. Thanks to modern technology, the entire two-hour, 15-minute hearing already is archived. (The hearing actually begins at 13:36 in the archived webcast.) The prepared statements of the witnesses also are available.
The unscripted questions and answers between the committee and panel members provided some of the more illuminating exchanges. The following involved Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Chairman; Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, Ranking Member, and two witnesses; it begins at 1:12:38 in the webcast.
Senator Inouye: I have just one more question to any one of you. Within 24 hours after the disaster in Southeast Asia, major stations such as CNN and all the networks began criticizing and suggesting they should have been notified so they could used their offices and facilities to warn the people. Is that a valid criticism? Could that have been done?
John Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy: It certainly could have been done. I do not know what the protocol is for notifications, but the National Weather Service is notified instantly, and usually their information is shared immediately with the media.
Brigadier General John Kelly, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), Deputy Undersecretary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Senator Inouye, it is my belief that many of those news organizations did in fact get the tsunami bulletin that was sent out from the from the Hagemeyer Warning Center in Hawaii. I think what they were asking for was some type of protocol be established wherein the watch officer might make a telephone call to them or somehow take an explicit step to get the information to them.
Senator Inouye: Is that a valid request?
BG Kelly: I think we have to do some analysis of it and what we are talking about. Now let's take the National Hurricane Center. When hurricanes are coming there is a large press presence in the Hurricane Center. Fortunately with hurricanes we have a bit more time to start alerting the public. With tsunamis, and while this earthquake, as Dr. (Charles) Groat said, was one of the more massive in the century, we had time to watch the tsunami perpetuate across the Pacific (sic). Frequently in Alaska and Hawaii you only have minutes, and I'm just not sure, given one watch officer on trying to issue bulletins, clarify the bulletins, that there's sufficient time frame to be talking to the press. There may be other arrangements that can be made with the press for them to get the information differently.
Senator Inouye: There was another criticism in that we did notify the countries involved, but the receiving facility was not operational. Is that a valid one?
BG Kelly: When you’re talking about the receiving, you’re talking about the receiving system in the in-country? (DKI: Yes.) As I said in my testimony, we have an agreement with 26 countries in the Pacific Rim to provide information to them, and they have the responsibility of developing their local warnings and distributing them to their country. No such system exists in the Indian Ocean, and so there is some truth in that countries were not prepared to deal with it. As I said in my testimony, tsunami preparedness has a number of variables in it. To my mind, the most important one is when you get the warning, have you got a way internally to get it out to your citizens, and have you educated them and work with them so they know what to do. Thanks to both of your help with the Tsunami Mitigation Program legislation in ’96 we’ve been able to do a fair amount of that work on the West Coast and in Hawaii.
Senator Inouye: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens: Gentlemen, if necessary, Senator Inouye and I will send you a letter to each of your agencies for this request: We would ask that you report back to us in two weeks what it would take to establish a system to notify the entities that have been mentioned – specifically, 911, the Weather Channel, the emergency disaster systems that exist in the 50 states. We’re concerned primarily with this country because of our committee’s jurisdiction. I’m sure others will be asking the questions about the international aspects of the system to come. But right now, we thought we had a system, and we found when this occurred that half of it was dormant, was not working. And we think we ought to have a system that not only we’re notified if something’s gone wrong but we also have an adequate apparatus to detect a problem and get at it now!
Beyond that, though, I think the news media have a legitimate cause to object! There’s no reason why we can’t have an interconnection with 911 or with the Weather Channel or with the disaster system or FEMA. We also handle communications, gentlemen, and that can be done automatically. Once you press the button, it can be very ubiquitous and go throughout the country if it’s set up right. So we’d like to know what it would take to do that! And if you need money, the Appropriations bills are coming up. We’ll see to it you get it.
BG Kelly: Mr. Chairman, I may have misunderstood your question. I thought when you were talking about the press you were talking about internationally. We in NOAA work very very closely with the Weather Channel. We work very very closely with FEMA. We will provide the information requested. I will be surprised in fact if those organizations you talked about did not have information about this tsunami. The fact was, though, that the tsunami was not going to impact the United States and therefore some of their interest may not have been as great on it. But internationally, dealing with international press, I’m not sure what the arrangements are.
Senator Stevens: Because we’re talking here about one that might be coming our way, and our buoys are supposed to tell us that.
BG Kelly: That’s what I’m telling you. I believe a system is in place if this one would have affected the United States.
The several witnesses were forthcoming in their testimony and responded to the senators' inquiries with conviction. However, some of their comments above do reveal a lack of familiarity with operations or communications plans that call for person-to-person voice contact with news media that have a capability to disseminate warnings internationally. The plans simply may not exist, and that's what we hope to uncover with the eventual release of those planning documents.
As usual, there was a tendency in the hearing to emphasize the reliance on automatic electronic notification of the media. Perhaps it would be useful for NOAA's planners to spend some time in a high-pressure media operation, where the incoming messages by telephone, fax, e-mail, radio and other methods can be confusing and overwhelming. It isn't hard for electronic messages to be lost in the ever-present "chatter" of that environment.
Senator Steven's obvious interest in notifying 911 and the Weather Channel might well be expanded to include the major media discussed on this web log in many previous posts -- the Associated Press, CNN, BBC, Reuters, News World International, UPI and others. Each of these organizations has globe-circling communications networks already in place that could assist the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in disseminating tsunami warnings. The harried watch officer mentioned by BG Kelly certainly deserves all the training he or she needs to be able to handle the pressure of fitting life-saving telephone calls into the protocol, because a failure to communicate can lead to tragic consequences.
The hearing was a positive development and should lead to opening up a valuable dialogue between NOAA, Congress and others whose goal is to save lives through the issuance of effective tsunami warnings.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 2, 2005
The unscripted questions and answers between the committee and panel members provided some of the more illuminating exchanges. The following involved Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, Chairman; Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, Ranking Member, and two witnesses; it begins at 1:12:38 in the webcast.
Senator Inouye: I have just one more question to any one of you. Within 24 hours after the disaster in Southeast Asia, major stations such as CNN and all the networks began criticizing and suggesting they should have been notified so they could used their offices and facilities to warn the people. Is that a valid criticism? Could that have been done?
John Marburger, III, Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy: It certainly could have been done. I do not know what the protocol is for notifications, but the National Weather Service is notified instantly, and usually their information is shared immediately with the media.
Brigadier General John Kelly, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), Deputy Undersecretary, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: Senator Inouye, it is my belief that many of those news organizations did in fact get the tsunami bulletin that was sent out from the from the Hagemeyer Warning Center in Hawaii. I think what they were asking for was some type of protocol be established wherein the watch officer might make a telephone call to them or somehow take an explicit step to get the information to them.
Senator Inouye: Is that a valid request?
BG Kelly: I think we have to do some analysis of it and what we are talking about. Now let's take the National Hurricane Center. When hurricanes are coming there is a large press presence in the Hurricane Center. Fortunately with hurricanes we have a bit more time to start alerting the public. With tsunamis, and while this earthquake, as Dr. (Charles) Groat said, was one of the more massive in the century, we had time to watch the tsunami perpetuate across the Pacific (sic). Frequently in Alaska and Hawaii you only have minutes, and I'm just not sure, given one watch officer on trying to issue bulletins, clarify the bulletins, that there's sufficient time frame to be talking to the press. There may be other arrangements that can be made with the press for them to get the information differently.
Senator Inouye: There was another criticism in that we did notify the countries involved, but the receiving facility was not operational. Is that a valid one?
BG Kelly: When you’re talking about the receiving, you’re talking about the receiving system in the in-country? (DKI: Yes.) As I said in my testimony, we have an agreement with 26 countries in the Pacific Rim to provide information to them, and they have the responsibility of developing their local warnings and distributing them to their country. No such system exists in the Indian Ocean, and so there is some truth in that countries were not prepared to deal with it. As I said in my testimony, tsunami preparedness has a number of variables in it. To my mind, the most important one is when you get the warning, have you got a way internally to get it out to your citizens, and have you educated them and work with them so they know what to do. Thanks to both of your help with the Tsunami Mitigation Program legislation in ’96 we’ve been able to do a fair amount of that work on the West Coast and in Hawaii.
Senator Inouye: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Stevens: Gentlemen, if necessary, Senator Inouye and I will send you a letter to each of your agencies for this request: We would ask that you report back to us in two weeks what it would take to establish a system to notify the entities that have been mentioned – specifically, 911, the Weather Channel, the emergency disaster systems that exist in the 50 states. We’re concerned primarily with this country because of our committee’s jurisdiction. I’m sure others will be asking the questions about the international aspects of the system to come. But right now, we thought we had a system, and we found when this occurred that half of it was dormant, was not working. And we think we ought to have a system that not only we’re notified if something’s gone wrong but we also have an adequate apparatus to detect a problem and get at it now!
Beyond that, though, I think the news media have a legitimate cause to object! There’s no reason why we can’t have an interconnection with 911 or with the Weather Channel or with the disaster system or FEMA. We also handle communications, gentlemen, and that can be done automatically. Once you press the button, it can be very ubiquitous and go throughout the country if it’s set up right. So we’d like to know what it would take to do that! And if you need money, the Appropriations bills are coming up. We’ll see to it you get it.
BG Kelly: Mr. Chairman, I may have misunderstood your question. I thought when you were talking about the press you were talking about internationally. We in NOAA work very very closely with the Weather Channel. We work very very closely with FEMA. We will provide the information requested. I will be surprised in fact if those organizations you talked about did not have information about this tsunami. The fact was, though, that the tsunami was not going to impact the United States and therefore some of their interest may not have been as great on it. But internationally, dealing with international press, I’m not sure what the arrangements are.
Senator Stevens: Because we’re talking here about one that might be coming our way, and our buoys are supposed to tell us that.
BG Kelly: That’s what I’m telling you. I believe a system is in place if this one would have affected the United States.
The several witnesses were forthcoming in their testimony and responded to the senators' inquiries with conviction. However, some of their comments above do reveal a lack of familiarity with operations or communications plans that call for person-to-person voice contact with news media that have a capability to disseminate warnings internationally. The plans simply may not exist, and that's what we hope to uncover with the eventual release of those planning documents.
As usual, there was a tendency in the hearing to emphasize the reliance on automatic electronic notification of the media. Perhaps it would be useful for NOAA's planners to spend some time in a high-pressure media operation, where the incoming messages by telephone, fax, e-mail, radio and other methods can be confusing and overwhelming. It isn't hard for electronic messages to be lost in the ever-present "chatter" of that environment.
Senator Steven's obvious interest in notifying 911 and the Weather Channel might well be expanded to include the major media discussed on this web log in many previous posts -- the Associated Press, CNN, BBC, Reuters, News World International, UPI and others. Each of these organizations has globe-circling communications networks already in place that could assist the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in disseminating tsunami warnings. The harried watch officer mentioned by BG Kelly certainly deserves all the training he or she needs to be able to handle the pressure of fitting life-saving telephone calls into the protocol, because a failure to communicate can lead to tragic consequences.
The hearing was a positive development and should lead to opening up a valuable dialogue between NOAA, Congress and others whose goal is to save lives through the issuance of effective tsunami warnings.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
February 2, 2005
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Testimony to U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (2/2/05)
Mr. Chairman, it is highly probable that tens of thousands of people died around the Indian Ocean rim on December 26, 2004 because an agency of the United States government was unprepared to issue an effective tsunami warning to the region’s population. This inference can be made with great certainty based on the public record and the statements of numerous federal government employees.
The warning failure occurred even though Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) scientists first suspected the existence of the tsunami as much as two-thirds of an hour before the first waves struck Sri Lanka, India and Thailand. That is clearly established in the tsunami timeline by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Ref: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2358.htm)
It’s true that scientists did not initially know that a 9.0 magnitude earthquake had struck near Indonesia. They first calculated the magnitude at 8.0, which they felt would have triggered only a localized tsunami or no tsunami at all.
Others may wish to investigate the too-low estimate of the earthquake’s strength with a goal of improving early forecasting techniques. The intent of my testimony, however, is to demonstrate that the communications protocols that existed on December 26 were inadequate to issue an effective warning and that U.S. officials may not have been sufficiently trained or sensitized to the importance of calling on the news media for assistance.
We know from numerous media interviews with the scientists that about an hour after the earthquake they felt a need to alert people in the Indian Ocean region about a possible tsunami. We also know that they felt handicapped by the absence of a high-tech tsunami detection and alert-dissemination system in the region. Nothing around the Indian Ocean approximates the sophistication of the Pacific Rim tsunami warning network.
To their credit, the Center’s personnel wanted to take some kind of action to alert the region. According to the Center’s director, as quoted in The International Herald Tribune: “We wanted to try to do something, but without a plan in place then, it was not an effective way to issue a warning, or to have it acted upon.” (Ref: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/28/news/warning.html)
Without a notification plan, the scientists resorted to telephoning their colleagues in south Asia, with virtually no success. What they did not do was telephone the major international news media, such as the Associated Press, CNN, the BBC, Reuters or any other news organization with world-wide communications capabilities.
In other words, in the 41 minutes between issuing a bulletin that mentioned a possible tsunami and when the first waves are now thought to have reached Sri Lanka, the scientists used the telephone to call one person at a time rather than call the mass media to help issue a warning through their broadcast and cable networks.
A NOAA spokesperson later gave what may be the most telling comment about the PTWC’s crisis communications preparedness: "Not only was the center focused on warning agencies, it does not have an official list of media contacts." (Ref: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050107-050909-7208r.htm)
Would alerting the news media in those first critical minutes have made a difference in how many people died in south Asia? With proper planning and coordination of media protocols, I’m certain lives could have been saved.
And I’m not alone. Many others around the world have questioned the lack of an effective warning. A woman in Sri Lanka who lost her father, sister and niece was interviewed by National Public Radio: “Why didn’t we receive warning? We had two hours after Indonesian quake, and at least five minutes warning would have helped. Five minutes would have saved my father’s life.”
(Ref: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4277195)
On January 11, the day NOAA’s administrator visited the PTWC and met with the Honolulu news media, I posted questions on my web log site that I felt might well be directed to him. They are still relevant today:
• Will NOAA release the PTWC’s crisis communications plan? (If not, why not?)
• What liaison did NOAA accomplish with the major media (Associated Press, CNN, BBC, etc.) before 12/26 to ensure emergency phone calls to these media would produce timely warnings to their audiences?
• Are PTWC scientists trained to telephone the media to issue life-saving warnings?
• Is the PTWC too high-tech oriented? Do you think low-tech telephone calls have a place in your pre-crisis planning and emergency warning protocols?
• Have you ordered changes in the PTWC warning protocols since the tsunami?
• Does NOAA accept responsibility for an internal procedural failure that might have cost the lives of tens of thousands of people in south Asia?
• What is NOAA telling south Asia nations about its performance on 12/26?
• What are your personal feelings about NOAA’s performance on 12/26?
The administrator did answer many media questions that day, including a variation of the last one. According to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, he called the PTWC staff’s actions “excellent” and faithful to the warning procedures in place. “This is a group that believes in saving lives and protecting property at all costs,” he said. (Ref: http://starbulletin.com/2005/01/12/news/index1.html)
The sad fact is the “warning procedures in place” on December 26 saved no lives and protected no property. Nothing PTWC scientists knew or did that day helped people in the tsunami danger zone.
I respectfully submit to this committee that the PTWC’s apparent inability to issue effective warnings is unacceptable. I have proposed a five-point program that would help NOAA shift its thinking and its culture to include meaningful media notification after future tsunami-generating earthquakes:
• NOAA should accept constructive criticism -- rather than deny -- that actions it could have undertaken likely would have saved lives in south Asia.
• NOAA should resolve to change its communications culture to include re-evaluating the scope of its information-disseminating mission -- i.e., whether its mission extends beyond the Pacific Rim.
• NOAA should rewrite its communications protocols to include early telephone calls to news organizations that have the capability of sending worldwide tsunami warnings.
• NOAA should accomplish high-level coordination with the management of these news agencies to ensure proper execution of the alerts when received by the media.
• NOAA should train its personnel to respond to suspected tsunamis by making direct person-to-person contact with major news outlets based on prior planning.
The media can be an efficient way to send warnings to threatened populations when time is of the essence, and NOAA would do well to integrate them into its crisis communications planning. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your deliberations on this important matter.
Submitted by:
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
The warning failure occurred even though Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) scientists first suspected the existence of the tsunami as much as two-thirds of an hour before the first waves struck Sri Lanka, India and Thailand. That is clearly established in the tsunami timeline by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Ref: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2358.htm)
It’s true that scientists did not initially know that a 9.0 magnitude earthquake had struck near Indonesia. They first calculated the magnitude at 8.0, which they felt would have triggered only a localized tsunami or no tsunami at all.
Others may wish to investigate the too-low estimate of the earthquake’s strength with a goal of improving early forecasting techniques. The intent of my testimony, however, is to demonstrate that the communications protocols that existed on December 26 were inadequate to issue an effective warning and that U.S. officials may not have been sufficiently trained or sensitized to the importance of calling on the news media for assistance.
We know from numerous media interviews with the scientists that about an hour after the earthquake they felt a need to alert people in the Indian Ocean region about a possible tsunami. We also know that they felt handicapped by the absence of a high-tech tsunami detection and alert-dissemination system in the region. Nothing around the Indian Ocean approximates the sophistication of the Pacific Rim tsunami warning network.
To their credit, the Center’s personnel wanted to take some kind of action to alert the region. According to the Center’s director, as quoted in The International Herald Tribune: “We wanted to try to do something, but without a plan in place then, it was not an effective way to issue a warning, or to have it acted upon.” (Ref: http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/28/news/warning.html)
Without a notification plan, the scientists resorted to telephoning their colleagues in south Asia, with virtually no success. What they did not do was telephone the major international news media, such as the Associated Press, CNN, the BBC, Reuters or any other news organization with world-wide communications capabilities.
In other words, in the 41 minutes between issuing a bulletin that mentioned a possible tsunami and when the first waves are now thought to have reached Sri Lanka, the scientists used the telephone to call one person at a time rather than call the mass media to help issue a warning through their broadcast and cable networks.
A NOAA spokesperson later gave what may be the most telling comment about the PTWC’s crisis communications preparedness: "Not only was the center focused on warning agencies, it does not have an official list of media contacts." (Ref: http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050107-050909-7208r.htm)
Would alerting the news media in those first critical minutes have made a difference in how many people died in south Asia? With proper planning and coordination of media protocols, I’m certain lives could have been saved.
And I’m not alone. Many others around the world have questioned the lack of an effective warning. A woman in Sri Lanka who lost her father, sister and niece was interviewed by National Public Radio: “Why didn’t we receive warning? We had two hours after Indonesian quake, and at least five minutes warning would have helped. Five minutes would have saved my father’s life.”
(Ref: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4277195)
On January 11, the day NOAA’s administrator visited the PTWC and met with the Honolulu news media, I posted questions on my web log site that I felt might well be directed to him. They are still relevant today:
• Will NOAA release the PTWC’s crisis communications plan? (If not, why not?)
• What liaison did NOAA accomplish with the major media (Associated Press, CNN, BBC, etc.) before 12/26 to ensure emergency phone calls to these media would produce timely warnings to their audiences?
• Are PTWC scientists trained to telephone the media to issue life-saving warnings?
• Is the PTWC too high-tech oriented? Do you think low-tech telephone calls have a place in your pre-crisis planning and emergency warning protocols?
• Have you ordered changes in the PTWC warning protocols since the tsunami?
• Does NOAA accept responsibility for an internal procedural failure that might have cost the lives of tens of thousands of people in south Asia?
• What is NOAA telling south Asia nations about its performance on 12/26?
• What are your personal feelings about NOAA’s performance on 12/26?
The administrator did answer many media questions that day, including a variation of the last one. According to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, he called the PTWC staff’s actions “excellent” and faithful to the warning procedures in place. “This is a group that believes in saving lives and protecting property at all costs,” he said. (Ref: http://starbulletin.com/2005/01/12/news/index1.html)
The sad fact is the “warning procedures in place” on December 26 saved no lives and protected no property. Nothing PTWC scientists knew or did that day helped people in the tsunami danger zone.
I respectfully submit to this committee that the PTWC’s apparent inability to issue effective warnings is unacceptable. I have proposed a five-point program that would help NOAA shift its thinking and its culture to include meaningful media notification after future tsunami-generating earthquakes:
• NOAA should accept constructive criticism -- rather than deny -- that actions it could have undertaken likely would have saved lives in south Asia.
• NOAA should resolve to change its communications culture to include re-evaluating the scope of its information-disseminating mission -- i.e., whether its mission extends beyond the Pacific Rim.
• NOAA should rewrite its communications protocols to include early telephone calls to news organizations that have the capability of sending worldwide tsunami warnings.
• NOAA should accomplish high-level coordination with the management of these news agencies to ensure proper execution of the alerts when received by the media.
• NOAA should train its personnel to respond to suspected tsunamis by making direct person-to-person contact with major news outlets based on prior planning.
The media can be an efficient way to send warnings to threatened populations when time is of the essence, and NOAA would do well to integrate them into its crisis communications planning. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your deliberations on this important matter.
Submitted by:
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)