Hype?

First off, the Houston Chronicle‘s Eric Berger is a good source for updates on Ike; he’s posting more frequently than usual, as his region is potentially threatened. And, of course, you can watch Ike’s progress for yourself on the infrared and visible satellite loops. Although the barometric pressure indicates the storm has deepened — to 957 mb at 9:57 AM EDT — Ike is struggling right now to maintain a visible eye, and the recon plane reports that the eye is “poorly defined.” Alan Sullivan writes that “unpredicted shear from the west, and a plume of the drier mid-level air” is causing the storm to “erode” a bit.

I’ll have more to say on Ike around midday EDT, but I just wanted to briefly highlight — and respond to — Sullivan’s comment on my previous post, clarifying his position on Ike and making his case for rhetorical restraint:

I use the term “overhyped” because there has been too much talk of “monster” storms. Even severe hurricanes rarely stay high category for a large part of their life cycle. Real monsters like Ivan or Wilma are rare.

Ike was very strong for a time, but it may not recover. Ike is struggling a bit today, and there are many reasons to think it will not inflict 150 mph winds on anyone ashore in Texas.

It is necessary to strike a balance between prudence and mass hysteria. With our media, we naturally tip to the latter. There may come a time when it will be appropriate to make dire and alarming statements about Ike, but we’re not there yet.

It is always a delicate balance between “sounding the alarm” early enough to get the public’s attention, and to convince them of a storm’s seriousness, before it’s too late for them to take action (which always means making “dire and alarming statements” before they are certain to be borne out); and “sounding the alarm” too vigorously and too soon, when dire statements aren’t yet justified, and when there’s still ample time to “wait and see” whether they will — or won’t — become justified.

Different people, confronted with the same set of facts, can honestly and reasonably disagree on the proper judgment call in many such situations. As I said, it’s a tough balancing act. (Of course, far too many in the mass media don’t even bother to wrestle with this dilemma, and just hype everything in sight. This is simply in the DNA of the MSM. It is irresponsible and damaging, but alas, it isn’t going to change.)

My view, personally, is that the best course is to give the public accurate information, including the plausible “worst-case scenarios,” but with accurate caveats, and let the chips fall where they may. (This is why Mayor Nagin’s “mother of all storms” statement was flawed; he left out the caveats.)

Granted, some will ignore the caveats and panic prematurely, while others will ignore the worst-case scenarios and treat the caveats as a license to be complacent. But at least, if they’re given fully accurate information, they have the tools with which to make good decisions. That some will still fail to do so, despite having the best information, ultimately falls on their shoulders. You can’t fix stupid. All you can do is tell people the truth — the whole truth, including the “alarming” parts and the less alarming parts — and give them prudent advice about what steps to take. Whether they take that advice is up to them.

Just my two cents. And I fully recognize that it’s much, much easier for me to pontificate about these issues from my distant blogospheric perch than it is for actual officials with direct responsibility over disaster preparedness issues to do their jobs well in such situations. I definitely wouldn’t want to trade places, so let no one think that I’m under the mistaken impression that these are easy calls.

As I said, more on the storm later.