•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (March 26)
•Letter to NOAA’s administrator with Eleven Questions (April 8 & 3)
•National Weather Service "won't allow" phone calls to media (March 31)
•Qualifications to write about this stuff (see January 13)
Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Director Charles McCreery is back in Honolulu following the Mauritius tsunami warning conference. He reports a growing awareness among people in tsunami warning circles that direct contact with the media soon after a tsunami is suspected should be the subject of more discussion.
As noted here, international agreements seem to discourage media involvement in disseminating tsunami warnings to local populations (see March 23 and March 25 posts). But McCreery said yesterday that after he raised the issue at the Mauritius meeting, several attendees approached him and agreed that involving the media in tsunami warnings more than they are now is an important issue.
McCreery told his Mauritius audience that since the media are going to learn about tsunami warnings and bulletins anyway, perhaps it’s better to communicate directly with them to exert influence over how the warning is handled. “If you’re concerned about not having the public unnecessarily alarmed,” he said, “maybe what we need to do is craft language that specifically goes to the media that would spell out the uncertainties and refer them to the national authorities.”
The meeting’s final report is expected to include language on the media-contact issue that was drafted by McCreery. That report will be available around May 10.
The Associated Press -- ready to report the news
Today’s lunch with the Associated Press’s Honolulu bureau chief covered issues we’ve previously kicked around only in e-mail and phone calls. Dave Briscoe said the AP won’t be a party to an “official tsunami warning system,” and that’s understandable. The AP is a news-gathering organization, not a partner with government.
Briscoe affirmed the AP’s obvious role as a reporter and disseminator of news, and if McCreery’s Center wants to improve its communications links to the media for future tsunami warnings, the AP could only welcome the effort.
Chip McCreery: If you’re reading this, the number for the Honolulu AP bureau is 536-5510, but since he probably isn't, I’ll be in touch.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
April 26, 2005
6 comments:
Hey Carlson,
I don't know why I'm bothering, since nobody reads your site based on the myriad comments you have received. Its laughable that you complain McCreery hasn't read your site, given hardly anyone else has.
But here's a little tidbit for you.
After the Dec 26 Eq, a couple of kooks out in Oregon predicted that there would be a major aftershock with a magnitude greater than 8.
Of course the news media, like A.P. inexplicably picked up on this, and carried it on their service. Then it made its way to Reuters and eventually India. In People were panicked by the report into an impromptu evacuation which resulted in the death of hundreds.
Still think issuing warnings through the news media is a good idea?
When the A.P. and Reuters show the scientific sophistication of the Japanese media, it might make sense. But obviously we are a long way from there.
And, from reading other stuff on the internet, I have found out that the PTWC issues its warning over the NOAA Weather Wire, which I am reasonably certain is monitored by various news agencies.
Instead of wasting your time tilting at windmills, why not do something useful, and find out why the media ignored a Bulletin issued for an 8.5 quake of the coast of Northern Sumatra. If they monitor the weather wire, they had to have seen it.
Perhaps because it occurred "over there", maybe they just didn't give a damn.
Now that would be a story.
Dear KookClobberrer, as long as you're aggravated by this site, the number of other readers doesn't matter.
Seriously, do you think "fixing" this problem will be done overnight? Even you said "obviously we are a long way from there." Of course there needs to be education on the local scene so people don't panic. Of course there needs to be education among the media so they don't publish panic-provoking dispatches.
And if you had thoroughly read this site, you'd have seen that the media don't necessarily know what's posted on all these government-related wires. The AP bureau chief in Honolulu doesn't even know how and by what mechanism the PTWC posts warnings on the AP's Hawaii state wire!
This web blog discusses a problem and suggests a solution. Call it a windmill if you like, but you're trivializing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who might -- just might -- have been saved if the news media had been in the loop on December 26.
And they weren't, were they? Or does KookClobberrer know something the rest of us don't. If you find it in your extensive readings, please do let us know.
Doug C.
Carlson writes
"And if you had thoroughly read this site, you'd have seen that the media don't necessarily know what's posted on all these government-related wires."
K: The typical cover your butt remark from the media. CNN knows: I've see their headers about PTWC bulletins before.
D:The AP bureau chief in Honolulu doesn't even know how and by what mechanism the PTWC posts warnings on the AP's Hawaii state wire!
K writes: I guess he's not interested enough to find out.But thanks for acknowledging that AP does get PTWC Bulletins. Now ask this ding-a-ling what did his minions do with PTWC's first Two bulletins issues within 1hr 15mins of the quake. Why didn't AP in Honolulu act on them.
AP can spread EQ predictions made by kooks, but doesn't have the where with all to act on PTWC's Bulletins?
I've seen CNN headers about PTWC issued Bulletins before 12/26.
The fact is, Doug, as you have demonstrated above is that the media does get PTWC Bulletins. Now rather then ask why they didn't find PTWC bulletins on 12/26 news worthy, you complain that PTWC doesn't hand it to them on a silver platter.
The one thing the media can't deal with is criticism of itself.
Doug:" This web blog discusses a problem and suggests a solution."
K: THe problem Doug, was that there was no warning system in the Indian Ocean. You're not looking for a solution. You're looking for scapegoats and to promote yourself.
D: "Call it a windmill if you like, but you're trivializing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people who might -- just might -- have been saved if the news media had been in the loop on December 26."
K: No, Doug, you're trivializing their deaths by seeking publicity in the aftermath of a trajedy. The Warning system in the Pacific, which is what the PTWC is part of, apparently has never used the media to forward its bulletins. And as far as I know, nobody has complained that people were killed in the Pacific cuz the warning system works through other channels than the press.
D: And they weren't, were they? Or does KookClobberrer know something the rest of us don't. If you find it in your extensive readings, please do let us know."
K: You just told us that the AP Honolulu Bureau chief already admitted they have acces to PTWC's bulletins. He may be clueless as to how they arrive, but they do get there.
Why didn't the AP find the 12/26 Bulletins news worthy at the time they were issued? Or was AP expecting a special invitation? They certainly needed no invitation to spread the words of a couple of kooks.
Again, Doug you're not helping. It looks like you're simply aggravating the situation.
If somebody simply wants to make suggestions thats one thing, but your site is replete with monday morning quarterbacking of scientists who deal with science you probably don't understand.
D: "Of course there needs to be education on the local scene so people don't panic."
K: No kidding. Sri Lankans didn't know what a "Tsunami" was.
Dear Kook....
Can't give you this much attention, so I'll be brief: The entire thrust of this blog has been to suggest that DIRECT, PICK-UP-THE-PHONE-AND-CALL media notifiction is missing in current procedures and shouldn't be. It's "not allowed" according to the PTWC, or did you read that? And if you read that, are you still positive there's no problem simply because SOME bulletins are slipped into the HAWAII wire so unobtrusively that the AP bureau chief DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THEY ARRIVE? Do you actually believe a protocol in place before 12/26 that included a call to the AP and CNN would NOT have saved lives? Sorry, K. Carry on as much as you like, but you just don't seem to understand this issue as much as you pretend to. Or maybe I misjudge your insights and expertise. Have you ever worked in a newsroom, in broadcasting, in civil defense? ID yourself, give some background, cite some expertise and I might change my opinion. But I doubt it.
D:Can't give you this much attention, so I'll be brief:
K: Well that might big of you.
D:The entire thrust of this blog has been to suggest that DIRECT, PICK-UP-THE-PHONE-AND-CALL media notifiction is missing in current procedures and shouldn't be. It's "not allowed" according to the PTWC, or did you read that?
K:Yeah, I read it. And for good reason, as I've illustrated previously. The Press is not savvy enough to handle these kinds of things responsibly.
D:And if you read that, are you still positive there's no problem simply because SOME bulletins are slipped into the HAWAII wire so unobtrusively that the AP bureau chief DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THEY ARRIVE?
K: "some"? And he still he can't be bothered to find out how they arrive? In a state with the tsunami history of Hawaii? I mean in Kentucky, that would be understandable.
K: Are you telling me the AP wire service doesn't monitor its own news feeds on 24/7 basis?
D: Do you actually believe a protocol in place before 12/26 that included a call to the AP and CNN would NOT have saved lives?
K: Probably not. Neither Sri Lankans, Indians, etc knew what a tsunami was. probably never heard of the PTWC either. How many Americans you think heard of the PTWC prior to 12/26? Did these countries have anyone in authority who could call for an evacuation, and did they have any evacuation plans? I don't know, but given the panic attack that ensued in India after the false prediciton of a large aftershock was amplified by your cohorts in the media, it doesn't seem so.
Most of the casualties occurred in Indonesia, where the waves came on shore within 15-20 minutes. No amount of media hype could've help them in that time frame.
D: Sorry, K. Carry on as much as you like, but you just don't seem to understand this issue as much as you pretend to.
K: If NOAA still does not have strong communications connections with Indian Ocean states, hammer the crap out of 'em. But if they do, then I don't see a role for the media.
Or maybe I misjudge your insights and expertise. Have you ever worked in a newsroom, in broadcasting, in civil defense?
K: I don't need that kind of experience to see the flaws in your reasoning. Reading your posts, they reek with condescension which is what probably got my goat.
K: My background is in physics. My pet peeve, people and media who abuse science and scientists.
Anyways, I have nonsense elsewhere to clobber.
Later
I'm sorry this has sounded condescending to you, KC. That's not my intent, and I'll watch what I write. But look who's condescending. You've been contemptuous of the media in each of your comments:
"Yeah, I read it. And for good reason, as I've illustrated previously. The Press is not savvy enough to handle these kinds of things responsibly."
"K: Are you telling me the AP wire service doesn't monitor its own news feeds on 24/7 basis?"
Yes, that's what I'm telling you. The Honolulu bureau isn't manned 24/7, so despite your assumptions about its operational capability, a tsunami bulletin sent out at 2 a.m. HST won't be read by anyone in the bureau for hours.
"Most of the casualties occurred in Indonesia, where the waves came on shore within 15-20 minutes. No amount of media hype could've help them in that time frame."
More of the same. KC, I've never claimed people 15 minutes away could have been saved, something you'd know if you had read as thoroughly as you claim. But India, Sri Lanka, East Africa....? You give the media far too little credit for its ability to communicate warnings that could save lives. And of course, it has to begin with education up and down the line.
Your comments have a dismissive ring to them: the people are too uneducated and the media too hopeless, you suggest. So we do what -- nothing? Don't examine and seek ways to improve?
"K: My background is in physics. My pet peeve, people and media who abuse science and scientists. Anyways, I have nonsense elsewhere to clobber."
So there it is: You're a scientist who objects to perceived criticism of scientists at the Warning Center. You don't just object; it's your "pet peeve."
That gives your comments some perspective, and I thank you for the insight.
Post a Comment