•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (March 26 post)
•Qualifications to write about this stuff (see January 13 post)
It’s been three weeks since NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr. was sent a letter about his agency’s alleged prohibition of direct (telephonic) media contacts to issue tsunami warnings. We’re left to wonder whether his response will repudiate communications protocols that actually prohibit telephone calls to major international news media to issue urgent warnings.
I would hope reporters everywhere would react the way I did upon learning of this policy – with incredulity. Newcomers to this site are encouraged to read the letter here as well as the questions it contained at a separate posting.
For a two-part report on my March 25 visit and meeting with the director of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center that first revealed the policy, click on the link above.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
McCreery Reports on Informal Mauritius Talks; Officially, Media Bulletins Still a Distant Goal
•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
•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
Friday, April 22, 2005
Not Much Is Happening, but Stand By....
•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (see March 26 posts)
It’s been eight days since this log’s latest post -- the longest gap since we started down this path in early January. Sometimes it’s best to just shut up and let events develop as they may. For example:
• Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Director Charles McCreery was due back in Hawaii today after attending meetings in Mauritius and Thailand. We’ve not yet connected, but I’m anxious to follow up on his e-mail (see April 14 post) and learn more about his colleagues’ reaction to the issues he raised last week at the tsunami warning conference.
• A NOAA representative e-mailed today that Admiral Lautenbacher’s office will get off a response soon to my letter that had about a dozen questions regarding NOAA’s communications protocols (April 8).
• Also percolating is a response to my previously unmentioned April 15 letter to Senator Daniel Inouye asking his position on the alleged prohibition on direct media contact by the Warning Center (March 31) and on recommended amendments to S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005 (February 12). Support by Hawaii’s senior senator will be crucial to changing communications procedures to include the international news media in sending tsunami warnings.
• About 170 Hawaii business leaders have been asked by letter to visit this blog and, if they agree that a bit more common sense is called for in how warnings are disseeminated, to write Senator Inouye noting their support. (No illusions here about how many will follow through, but maybe we'll get a few more pairs of eyes on this site, and that can't hurt.)
• The Associated Press's Honolulu bureau chief and I are having lunch next week to chew the fat.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
It’s been eight days since this log’s latest post -- the longest gap since we started down this path in early January. Sometimes it’s best to just shut up and let events develop as they may. For example:
• Pacific Tsunami Warning Center Director Charles McCreery was due back in Hawaii today after attending meetings in Mauritius and Thailand. We’ve not yet connected, but I’m anxious to follow up on his e-mail (see April 14 post) and learn more about his colleagues’ reaction to the issues he raised last week at the tsunami warning conference.
• A NOAA representative e-mailed today that Admiral Lautenbacher’s office will get off a response soon to my letter that had about a dozen questions regarding NOAA’s communications protocols (April 8).
• Also percolating is a response to my previously unmentioned April 15 letter to Senator Daniel Inouye asking his position on the alleged prohibition on direct media contact by the Warning Center (March 31) and on recommended amendments to S.50, The Tsunami Preparedness Act of 2005 (February 12). Support by Hawaii’s senior senator will be crucial to changing communications procedures to include the international news media in sending tsunami warnings.
• About 170 Hawaii business leaders have been asked by letter to visit this blog and, if they agree that a bit more common sense is called for in how warnings are disseeminated, to write Senator Inouye noting their support. (No illusions here about how many will follow through, but maybe we'll get a few more pairs of eyes on this site, and that can't hurt.)
• The Associated Press's Honolulu bureau chief and I are having lunch next week to chew the fat.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Breakthrough in Mauritius? McCreery Talks Up Media Involvement for Issuing Tsunami Warnings
•Status of letter to NOAA's Lautenbacher: Awaiting his response (see April 8 post)
•National Weather Service "won't allow" phone calls to media ( March 31 post)
•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center ( March 26 posts)
Could it be we’re actually getting somewhere?
Dr. Charles McCreery, director of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, writes today from the Tsunami Warning Conference in Mauritius that he has introduced the idea of partnering with the media to issue tsunami warnings. As noted in numerous posts here, the media essentially are not in the loop under current communications protocols.
McCreery responded to an e-mail I sent earlier today asking if he still intended to raise the subject, as he indicated he would when we met on March 25 (see post immediately below). He said there has a been a cautious – but not negative – response from his colleagues. A representative from the World Meteorological Association reportedly said the agency has been working on this issue for years regarding major weather events and that tsunami scientists might benefit from their experience.
“Breakthrough” is too strong a word, but “progress” isn’t. Chip McCreery has made a move in Mauritius. He’ll have more to report either by e-mail or when he returns to Hawaii.
Postscript
We're about half-way through "Tsunami Awareness Month" in Hawaii, and the news media are pretty much ignoring it. They're also apparently ignoring the questions e-mailed to 28 Hawaii journalists, the answers to which would be helpful in understanding just how the PTWC sends its tsunami warnings to the media (see April 3 post).
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
•National Weather Service "won't allow" phone calls to media ( March 31 post)
•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center ( March 26 posts)
Could it be we’re actually getting somewhere?
Dr. Charles McCreery, director of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, writes today from the Tsunami Warning Conference in Mauritius that he has introduced the idea of partnering with the media to issue tsunami warnings. As noted in numerous posts here, the media essentially are not in the loop under current communications protocols.
McCreery responded to an e-mail I sent earlier today asking if he still intended to raise the subject, as he indicated he would when we met on March 25 (see post immediately below). He said there has a been a cautious – but not negative – response from his colleagues. A representative from the World Meteorological Association reportedly said the agency has been working on this issue for years regarding major weather events and that tsunami scientists might benefit from their experience.
“Breakthrough” is too strong a word, but “progress” isn’t. Chip McCreery has made a move in Mauritius. He’ll have more to report either by e-mail or when he returns to Hawaii.
Postscript
We're about half-way through "Tsunami Awareness Month" in Hawaii, and the news media are pretty much ignoring it. They're also apparently ignoring the questions e-mailed to 28 Hawaii journalists, the answers to which would be helpful in understanding just how the PTWC sends its tsunami warnings to the media (see April 3 post).
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
New Month, New Meeting; Mauritius Conference Focuses on New Indian Ocean Warning System
•Status on letter to NOAA’s Lautenbacher: Awaiting his response (see April 8 post)
•National Weather Service “won’t allow” direct media contact (see March 31 post)
•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (see March 26 posts)
Mauritius (20º south, 57º east, some 500 miles east of Madagascar) is hosting the Second International Coordination Meeting for the Development of an Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System on April 14-16. Numerous documents can be accessed here.
Among them is the 2nd Draft Edition of the Communications Plan for the Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific, dated April 7, 2005. As with the 1st draft, which was completed just in time for the First International Coordination Meeting in March, this one was reviewed by Francois Schindele of France, chairman of the International Tsunami Information Center in Honolulu, and Dr. Laura Kong, its director.
A new reviewer this time is Dr. Charles McCreery, with whom I met on March 25 at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, where he is the director. I wrote about that visit in two posts on March 26.
McCreery told me then that although the member states in the tsunami warning network generally don’t want media transmission of tsunami warnings into their territory, he could raise the issue at the Mauritius meeting as a way to speed warnings to populations in peril. Now that he’s in Mauritius, I’ll send an e-mail to see if that’s still his intention.
A cursory reading of the 2nd Draft Edition of the Communications Plan unfortunately reveals no added emphasis on media notification. McCreery also told me on March 25 that the National Weather Service "won't allow" direct telephonic notification of the news media to issue tsunami warnings, an assertion that requires clarification.
My letter to Admiral Lautenbacher asks him to revoke such a prohibition if it exists, since it appears indefensible. He presumably holds the key to revising the PTWC’s communications protocols to use the international news media’s networks to speed tsunami warnings and save lives.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
•National Weather Service “won’t allow” direct media contact (see March 31 post)
•Report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (see March 26 posts)
Mauritius (20º south, 57º east, some 500 miles east of Madagascar) is hosting the Second International Coordination Meeting for the Development of an Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System on April 14-16. Numerous documents can be accessed here.
Among them is the 2nd Draft Edition of the Communications Plan for the Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific, dated April 7, 2005. As with the 1st draft, which was completed just in time for the First International Coordination Meeting in March, this one was reviewed by Francois Schindele of France, chairman of the International Tsunami Information Center in Honolulu, and Dr. Laura Kong, its director.
A new reviewer this time is Dr. Charles McCreery, with whom I met on March 25 at the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, where he is the director. I wrote about that visit in two posts on March 26.
McCreery told me then that although the member states in the tsunami warning network generally don’t want media transmission of tsunami warnings into their territory, he could raise the issue at the Mauritius meeting as a way to speed warnings to populations in peril. Now that he’s in Mauritius, I’ll send an e-mail to see if that’s still his intention.
A cursory reading of the 2nd Draft Edition of the Communications Plan unfortunately reveals no added emphasis on media notification. McCreery also told me on March 25 that the National Weather Service "won't allow" direct telephonic notification of the news media to issue tsunami warnings, an assertion that requires clarification.
My letter to Admiral Lautenbacher asks him to revoke such a prohibition if it exists, since it appears indefensible. He presumably holds the key to revising the PTWC’s communications protocols to use the international news media’s networks to speed tsunami warnings and save lives.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
Friday, April 08, 2005
NOAA's Lautenbacher Urged to Clarify Media Contact Policy & Revoke Any Existing Prohibitions
(see March 26 posts for report on a visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center)
The danger for one-topic web logs like this one is that they end up saying the same thing a couple hundred times, with variations here and there. The topic here concerns ensuring that the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center has common-sense media-contact policies that save lives, so I don't mind if you don't.
Here's the heart of the issue, as posted since March 26: Do policies actually exist that prohibit the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center from using the mass media to transmit urgent warnings to countries and populations thousands of miles away? Hard as it may be to believe, that's what I was told by the Center's director during my March 25 visit.
A list of questions prompted by that visit is now headed to NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr. Here's the letter:
Dear Admiral Lautenbacher:
On March 25 I visited the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center at the invitation of its director, Dr. Charles McCreery. I have been writing for the past three months (see web log address above) regarding the absence of a media strategy to issue a tsunami warning to the Indian Ocean region following the December earthquake.
I'm aware that the region is outside the Center's traditional area of responsibility; however, the tremendous loss of life seemingly calls for a policy review and change that would ensure the involvement of major international news media in the issuance of tsunami warnings to populations in peril many thousands of miles away.
Since news organizations such as the Associated Press, CNN, Reuters and the BBC have worldwide networks and are equipped to transmit information quickly, their involvement soon after the December earthquake quite likely could have alerted some Indian Ocean nations to the onrushing tsunami in time to save lives.
Dr. McCreery responded to my inquiries about the absence of a proactive media-contact strategy (i.e., no telephone calls with urgent messages) by saying the National Weather Service “won't allow” such contact. He said the Center would not want to exclude some media in making a limited number of calls. I did not argue the issue but could have noted that the media routinely engage in “pools” to cover events.
If a policy truly does exist that inhibits the rapid transmission of tsunami warnings using the news media, I urge you to personally revoke it. Dr. McCreery's assertion raises other questions about NOAA's media strategy and policies that have been asked by numerous sources since December, and I respectfully ask that your office address the following:
(see April 3 post for the questions)
You and I and everyone else concerned about tsunami warnings have the same goal - to save lives - yet nothing the PTWC knew or did in December achieved that goal. As I wrote in a letter to The Honolulu Advertiser published on December 30, the Indian Ocean tsunami deserves as much reflection as people of goodwill can possibly give it. To do anything less than an exhaustive after-action analysis would be both irresponsible and disrespectful to the dead.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
The danger for one-topic web logs like this one is that they end up saying the same thing a couple hundred times, with variations here and there. The topic here concerns ensuring that the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center has common-sense media-contact policies that save lives, so I don't mind if you don't.
Here's the heart of the issue, as posted since March 26: Do policies actually exist that prohibit the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center from using the mass media to transmit urgent warnings to countries and populations thousands of miles away? Hard as it may be to believe, that's what I was told by the Center's director during my March 25 visit.
A list of questions prompted by that visit is now headed to NOAA Administrator Conrad Lautenbacher, Jr. Here's the letter:
Dear Admiral Lautenbacher:
On March 25 I visited the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center at the invitation of its director, Dr. Charles McCreery. I have been writing for the past three months (see web log address above) regarding the absence of a media strategy to issue a tsunami warning to the Indian Ocean region following the December earthquake.
I'm aware that the region is outside the Center's traditional area of responsibility; however, the tremendous loss of life seemingly calls for a policy review and change that would ensure the involvement of major international news media in the issuance of tsunami warnings to populations in peril many thousands of miles away.
Since news organizations such as the Associated Press, CNN, Reuters and the BBC have worldwide networks and are equipped to transmit information quickly, their involvement soon after the December earthquake quite likely could have alerted some Indian Ocean nations to the onrushing tsunami in time to save lives.
Dr. McCreery responded to my inquiries about the absence of a proactive media-contact strategy (i.e., no telephone calls with urgent messages) by saying the National Weather Service “won't allow” such contact. He said the Center would not want to exclude some media in making a limited number of calls. I did not argue the issue but could have noted that the media routinely engage in “pools” to cover events.
If a policy truly does exist that inhibits the rapid transmission of tsunami warnings using the news media, I urge you to personally revoke it. Dr. McCreery's assertion raises other questions about NOAA's media strategy and policies that have been asked by numerous sources since December, and I respectfully ask that your office address the following:
(see April 3 post for the questions)
You and I and everyone else concerned about tsunami warnings have the same goal - to save lives - yet nothing the PTWC knew or did in December achieved that goal. As I wrote in a letter to The Honolulu Advertiser published on December 30, the Indian Ocean tsunami deserves as much reflection as people of goodwill can possibly give it. To do anything less than an exhaustive after-action analysis would be both irresponsible and disrespectful to the dead.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
Sunday, April 03, 2005
For Hawaii Tsunami Awareness Month, a List of Questions for Mainstream Media To Ask the PTWC
(see March 26 posts for report on visit to the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center)
Another consequence of the December tsunami will be greater awareness in Hawaii this April than in any previous annual observance of tsunami awareness month.
April would be an excellent time for the mainstream Honolulu news media to ask questions they’ve avoided until now about a critical and newsworthy issue – how the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center actually disseminates its warnings to distant imperiled populations.
The March 31 post to this web log has a list of questions that have been sent to NOAA Administrator Lautenbacher for a response. Why should the highest-ranking official at NOAA even bother with this list?
Because somebody has to explain the apparent existence of a policy that inhibits the dissemination of tsunami warnings to populations in peril.
According to PTWC Director Charles McCreery, his staff is “not allowed” by the National Weather Service to telephone the major news media when a tsunami is suspected. That’s a direct quote from my visit to the Center on March 25 (see March 26 posts to this blog). According to McCreery, the restriction stems from a belief that if you were to call some media, you’d have to call them all, which of course is not true.
Given the fact that the major international news media can pass on tsunami warnings to their broadcast and cablecast consumers faster than any telephone tree involving government agencies (which is what the PTWC used on March 28), the existence of this restriction is indefensible and requires examination.
The media can help the general understanding of how the PTWC operates by asking these questions. Since the whole point of a rapid tsunami warning capability is to save lives, the public deserves to know how the Center is pursuing that goal, which so obviously was not met in December.
The following questions are being sent to Honolulu reporters whose reporting responsibilities may present an opportunity to interview representatives of the PTWC:
• Is there a policy that deliberately curtails PTWC contact with the media?
• If so, where is that policy to be found in writing?
• If the answer is "no", how does Dr. McCreery explain his March 25 assertion?
• Just how does the Center send tsunami alerts to the news media? What specific channels are used and how do they operate?
• Which media receive these messages? Which organizations are on the recipient list?
• Are any media recipients outside the PTWC's traditional area of responsibility -- the Pacific Basin? Are any Indian Ocean regional media on the list?
• Have recipients been added since December 26?
• Are urgent tsunami-related messages differentiated in any way from the routine? If so, how is attention drawn to them? (One local journalist in a position to know says PTWC bulletins are inserted automatically and unobtrusively into the Associated Press's "state" wire, with no accompanying bells or whistles to alert newsrooms that they're there.)
• Is a formal review of communications policy underway at NOAA arising from the December and March earthquakes?
• What changes in communications policy or PTWC standard operating communications procedures have been initiated since December 26?
• Scientists didn’t transmit a bulletin about a presumed tsunami in December until 65 minutes after the earthquake; that lag time was shortened to 19 minutes on March 28. Is the shorter time the result of a policy change at NOAA, NWS and/or PTWC? Please explain.
It’s time for Honolulu reporters to step up and do more than ask for sound bites and quotes that satisfy not-so-inquiring editors but do little to promote understanding.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
April 3, 2005
Another consequence of the December tsunami will be greater awareness in Hawaii this April than in any previous annual observance of tsunami awareness month.
April would be an excellent time for the mainstream Honolulu news media to ask questions they’ve avoided until now about a critical and newsworthy issue – how the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center actually disseminates its warnings to distant imperiled populations.
The March 31 post to this web log has a list of questions that have been sent to NOAA Administrator Lautenbacher for a response. Why should the highest-ranking official at NOAA even bother with this list?
Because somebody has to explain the apparent existence of a policy that inhibits the dissemination of tsunami warnings to populations in peril.
According to PTWC Director Charles McCreery, his staff is “not allowed” by the National Weather Service to telephone the major news media when a tsunami is suspected. That’s a direct quote from my visit to the Center on March 25 (see March 26 posts to this blog). According to McCreery, the restriction stems from a belief that if you were to call some media, you’d have to call them all, which of course is not true.
Given the fact that the major international news media can pass on tsunami warnings to their broadcast and cablecast consumers faster than any telephone tree involving government agencies (which is what the PTWC used on March 28), the existence of this restriction is indefensible and requires examination.
The media can help the general understanding of how the PTWC operates by asking these questions. Since the whole point of a rapid tsunami warning capability is to save lives, the public deserves to know how the Center is pursuing that goal, which so obviously was not met in December.
The following questions are being sent to Honolulu reporters whose reporting responsibilities may present an opportunity to interview representatives of the PTWC:
• Is there a policy that deliberately curtails PTWC contact with the media?
• If so, where is that policy to be found in writing?
• If the answer is "no", how does Dr. McCreery explain his March 25 assertion?
• Just how does the Center send tsunami alerts to the news media? What specific channels are used and how do they operate?
• Which media receive these messages? Which organizations are on the recipient list?
• Are any media recipients outside the PTWC's traditional area of responsibility -- the Pacific Basin? Are any Indian Ocean regional media on the list?
• Have recipients been added since December 26?
• Are urgent tsunami-related messages differentiated in any way from the routine? If so, how is attention drawn to them? (One local journalist in a position to know says PTWC bulletins are inserted automatically and unobtrusively into the Associated Press's "state" wire, with no accompanying bells or whistles to alert newsrooms that they're there.)
• Is a formal review of communications policy underway at NOAA arising from the December and March earthquakes?
• What changes in communications policy or PTWC standard operating communications procedures have been initiated since December 26?
• Scientists didn’t transmit a bulletin about a presumed tsunami in December until 65 minutes after the earthquake; that lag time was shortened to 19 minutes on March 28. Is the shorter time the result of a policy change at NOAA, NWS and/or PTWC? Please explain.
It’s time for Honolulu reporters to step up and do more than ask for sound bites and quotes that satisfy not-so-inquiring editors but do little to promote understanding.
Doug Carlson
Honolulu, HI
April 3, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)