4.5 Article

#EarthquakeAdvisory: Exploring Discourse between Government Officials, News Media, and Social Media during the 2016 Bombay Beach Swarm

期刊

SEISMOLOGICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 91, 期 1, 页码 438-451

出版社

SEISMOLOGICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1785/0220190082

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Communicating probabilities of natural hazards to varied audiences is a notoriously difficult task. Many of these challenges were encountered during the 2016 Bombay Beach, California, swarm of similar to 100 2 <= M <= 4.3 earthquakes, which began on 26 September 2016 and lasted for several days. The swarm's proximity to the southern end of the San Andreas fault caused concern that a larger earthquake could be triggered. Within 1-2 days, different forecast models were used to evaluate the likelihood of a larger event with two agencies (the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services) releasing probabilities and forecasts for larger earthquakes. Our research explores communication and news media efforts, as well as how people on a microblogging social media site (Twitter) responded to these forecasts. Our findings suggest that news media used a combination of information sources, basing their articles on what they learned from social media, as well as using information provided by government agencies. As the swarm slowed down, there is evidence of the continued interplay between news media and social media, with the USGS issuing revised probability reports and scientists from the USGS and other institutions participating in media interviews. In reporting on the swarm, news media often used language more generally than the scientists; terms such as probability, likelihood, chance, and possibility were used interchangeably. Knowledge of how news media used scientific information from the 2016 Bombay Beach forecasts can assist local, state, and federal agencies in developing effective communication strategies to respond to future earthquakes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据