The Internet is Helping Us in Natural Disasters, But Not Enough

I just published a new post on the Silicon Valley Moms Blog about what's now being called the "Summit Fire" in the Santa Cruz Mountains near Watsonville. As a kid who grew-up in tornado country, I was completely clueless about wildfires until yesterday. Now I've been studying everything available online to track the blaze because it's just a few miles from my sister's dream home, her animals, and one of the most beautiful pieces of property I've ever seen in my life. I don't know if I'm at liberty to describe it, but even if I did, still, it's one of those places where you have to see it to believe it.

In any case, what I learned over the past 24 hours is that although we have 2700 firefighters on the scene to battle these fires, we only get semi-accurate updates about once a day about where the fires really are. People are in their homes waiting for calls or knocks on the door to evacuate. The neighbors who may or may not have phones or power communicate to the best of their ability, but they're still not certain how far away it is. They see the smoke or possibly the flames, but it's difficult to discern the distance. I found one live blog site where there was some minimal conversation via locals about what was going on to help sift through the mystery, but that was it.

So what I want to know is where do we go from here? What is the future of emergency response online? It has to be better than a few news sites and links. I'm not saying what we have now isn't good. I'm happy we have the resources we do. But I know from my technology background that we can do better. We've put together phenomenal outreach programs and online activism to raise money and repair devastated areas. Why not create a place where communities can create ad-hoc emergency response sites as they arise? It's possible something like this already exists, but not enough of us know about it.

What I found was one site for firefighters that said how to listen on short range scanners, some articles on the local newspaper site, a few maps that are only updated daily, the state fire site with data updated periodically (like every day or half a day), one satellite image of the fire, brief TV and radio coverage, a state road closures page, one live blog on the local news station web site where people exchanged notes, and a totally overloaded fire detection map at noaa.gov that nobody can use because everybody's trying to get to it. And when watching the news and hearing from locals, it seems that the firefighters and police are keeping things barricaded for safety and not allowing any information transferral during the process.

Fires are dangerous, but if people can use personal weather stations and webcams like linked on the Weather Underground, why not have a system that applies locals as information centers online and includes what's coming across the waves from emergency support services? Anyone out there have an idea of how to do this?

Two Great Chronicle Articles: Web to TV & Blogging with Babies

In today's Chronicle, two interesting articles:

First, "Web sites enable campaign TV ads on the cheap" by Joe Garofoli tells about how the web and sites like VoterVoter.com and SpotRunner.com are making video ads easier and cheaper to create and disseminate, and it discusses the ramifications of this in terms of the presidential campaign.

Micah Sifry of techPresident (and the Personal Democracy Forum) is quoted about how technology and "mass participation" is changing the face of politics. Anyone who has worked in a statewide or national campaign knows that the majority of campaign budgets go to TV advertising even now with the Internet gaining speed and digital democracy becoming a more prevalent term.

Still, the majority of voters are reached through television and it's expensive. This is why the Internet staff always takes a back seat in terms of campaign strategy; it's just a fact that television still makes the rules. I see the tides turning, but it will take time. Sites like these will help with the transition to new media as new generations of voters who are online gradually become the majority.

Second, one of my co-contributors at the Silicon Valley Moms Blog Group, Charlene Li is mentioned in Ellen Lee's article, "In parenthood, sometimes a blog is born," which I know from personal experience has many truths. Granted, I wasn't twittering from the delivery room, but blogging helped keep me sane while on bed rest and going through a lengthy postpartum recovery.

The article also quotes Elisa Camahort Page, BlogHer cofounder, and it throws around buzzwords like Web 2.0 as much as possible to get socnet cred. What is most poignant about this piece to me are the stats about how much moms are targeted now in advertising online. It's always been that way on TV, but now mommybloggers are discovering their power with corporations and other sponsors to this effect. Beth Blecherman has a great post up at SVMoms that touches on this, and I think it may be eligible for some kind of "most links in a post" award.

Rove v. Kos

This is going to be good. Karl Rove (Bush's Brain) and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (Daily KOS) duking it out in Newsweek throughout the 2008 campaign. According to the Washington Post, Rove and Kos will each have a column.

For those who see this move by Newsweek to be unorthodox or even mundane, let me say this - by putting two major figures who have shaped politics from the right and left over the recent past, we the people will have a unique angle on watching issues in this debate shift. And we will have the opportunity to hear what they think. Plus spin. I expect less spin from Kos because that's not his schtick, but Rove will undoubtedly be riding the spinwagon till the bitter end. Here are two people who are smart, articulate and knee-deep in the views of their parties' political base. I believe they'll call it as they see it and put up some great arguments for their respective causes.

Now, about the issue the Washington Post article notes of people moving from politics to press and vice versa, I understand why there's concern - the folks in power worry about leaks and message control. But if you are a person with loyalty or integrity, that doesn't happen. As someone who works on campaigns and also is a blogger, I won't talk about the internals of campaigns I work on in any way that compromises any remotely confidential information, if I write about them at all, and I won't say anything negative about the candidates because I feel it's both ethically wrong and just plain stupid. You shoot yourself in the foot if you do that. Republicans should know by now Rove isn't going to air their dirty laundry.

In cases where it goes the other way and campaigns hire people who have worked in media, they need an agreement from the get-go what those people will and won't divulge and how, once they are working on the campaign or in the government office. It didn't work out so well for the Edwards campaign early this year, but Hillary Clinton made a good move in hiring Peter Daou in 2006 from Salon.com. With media blurring into all aspects of our lives via the Internet and citizen journalism, media and political organizations should be working together more than ever.