The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
We Have To Change Our Language
It's with interest I read the articles about the gas explosion in San Bruno and it highlighted a few potential issues around the way we communicate with the public and media.
Here's the full article:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/san-bruno-fire-chief-...
Here's an example: "Within a minute, he had sounded a four-alarm fire, he said."
What's a four alarm fire? When we communicate with the public and want them to understand what we're talking about, the dangers, the scale, etc, we need to take our lingo out of the communications and (for want of a better word) dumb it down.
Here's another example, "Barringer said he had worked strike teams in the Los Angeles area during past fire seasons"
What's a Strike Team? Again, the general public doesn't understand our lingo.
I know that a lot of things are said while jogging on the spot and in the heat of the moment, but we need to take a moment to think about what we're trying to communicate and who to. The average Joe Citizen doesn't udnerstand our lingo and if there's specific information we need to get across in an emergency, then we need to be extra careful.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by M.J. 6821 on
-
This is one of the times where there should have been a PIO(Public information officer) should have been used that way the IC wouldnt have had to leave the command post and the PIO would have had extra time to get a well prepared response for the media instead of the chief having to come up with comments from the seat of his pants.
-
Permalink Reply by Karr Quintero on
-
exactly, thats ICS 100 stuff right there
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
So very True, If a PIO woould have been used they could have stated it in terms that the average citizen would understand.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
You're right Luke - jargon should never be used to the public, we fall too easily into its use. As said by ^^^ it needs to be left to someone trained,someone given the time to set it down, make sure it's consise.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
I lay this one the journos. They know that the public won't understand the jargon but don't bother to clarify. I can let it slide in live media (TV or radio) but in print it is inexcusable. Simple stuff like "The fire escalated to 4 alarms (an 'alarm' is 5 units, approximately 21 personnel) within five minutes" gives enough detail without bogging the public in details.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
I lay this one the journos. They know that the public won't understand the jargon but don't bother to clarify. I can let it slide in live media (TV or radio) but in print it is inexcusable.
Vic, I've taught Meida Management for Emergency Services at the Commonwealth level for a while and at the end of the day, the journo's report what we tell them (or make it up in some cases!).
Terminology like "4 alarm" means nothing to the average citizen and when we're going for the wow factor, sympathy vote, plead for assistanc or whatever, we need to remember who we're communicating with.
Interestingly enough, I Googled a definition for a four alarm response and couldn't find a definitive one. What hope does everyone else have?
Simple stuff like "The fire escalated to 4 alarms (an 'alarm' is 5 units, approximately 21 personnel) within five minutes" gives enough detail without bogging the public in details
Better yet and easier, "Within 5 minutes, we responded with 5 trucks and 21 firefighters".
Seems pretty clear cut to me, no misunderstanding on what the response was.
-
-
I'll go with that kind of thing too. Give the media something short and simple. How many trucks (no need to say what sort), how many people. Actually, I think that's how I've seen things in most media reports. 'Alarms'? The Mets down here use the 'alarm' system, but even reports on their jobs list numbers.
Let's just ignore the jargon completely when talking to media people.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
You're talking about the chief of a department that operates two engines and a truck out of two stations, and who had just been confronted with probably the largest incident of his career. Ia major section of his town was still burning, and he knew that he had a multi-fatal incident to deal with.
n that instance, he's going to give the information in the way he knows, which is what he did.
The general public in California has heard FIRESCOPE terminology for decades, so the chief was speaking a language that is generally understood there.
In the U.S., the "1st alarm, 2nd alarm, etc" system is generally understood as requests for additional equipment and manpower times the number of requests. That terminology has been used in the news media for well over a hundred years.
The locals didn't seem to have any problem understanding that it was a big incident that required lots of help from outside their small town.
-
-
That may be true that the puclic know what the chief is talking about, however I still don't agree with the chief leaving the command post of probably the largest incident he has ever seen. If you have a unified command which from what I understand there was, there should have been someone there that was in the loop that could have given the media some idea of whats going on without the incident commander having to leave his post where a lot of things on something that big can happen from one minute to the next.
-
-
Where did you get any information that the chief left the command post?
The chief was not in evidence in the video - it was simply a reporter discussing the incident in a remote linkup with a news anchor.
The accompanying story interviewed the captain of the 1st-due engine after he had been relieved.
Do you know if the fire chief was even the incident commander, or that he was ever at the command post at all?
If you don't have good evidence for your assumptions, you might want to re-evaluate those assupmptions.
-
Permalink Reply by Tiger Schmittendorf on
-
I agree Ben -
While I am certainly a disciple of the ICS principle of using plain English terminology, fire terminology in many western states, especially California, is far more pervasive than probably in most other states due to the number and frequency of large scale incidents there.
While "four alarm fire" may be a relative term with varying definitions, given their exposure many Californians probably have a pretty good feel for what a strike team is in context of the overall incident. It's probably been explained to them over and over again, maybe just not this time.
And given the fact that this quickly became an overwhelming world-wide media event, I'll give the chief the benefit of the doubt in using terms he knows. For all we know, the terms may have been explained to the media off-camera during follow-up questions but the referenced report just didn't include the background info.
Although the common citizen may not fully understand what a strike team consists of, I don't think it's much of a stretch for them to figure out the difference in magnitude between a one-alarm and a four-alarm fire.
Beyond the gravity of the situation, I don't think they need to know too many more specifics in order to grasp a basic understanding that the incident is not good and is escalating into something worse.
Besides, if the ICS system only used plain-English terminology --- why do we use the acronym "ICS" every time we refer to it --- instead of spelling out Incident Command System each time? LOL
Put yourself in his shoes, facing what he was facing, and let's see what comes out of your mouth. Chances are it may not be fit for prime-time!
Stay safe. Train often. (and know your audience...)
-
-
Thanks Tiger.
I'd add one other thing. NIMS took most of its terminolgy from FIRESCOPE. A lot of the people who consulted on the NIMS termonology were FIRESCOPE devotees.
There are some things I don't like about NIMS - the position terminology is unnecessarily complex - who cares if it's a Branch Chief or a Branch Manager - and the the Tender/Tanker thing is just silly, but otherwise the system works as long as the people running it use are familiar with the system and use common sense.
In California, NIMS and FIRESCOPE are essentially undistinguishable to the uninitiated.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
