WEBVTT

00:00:01.000 --> 00:00:11.000
Welcome back, everyone, to our last and definitely not least, session of the workshop. This year, we have a very exciting, very special roundtable discussion.

00:00:11.000 --> 00:00:13.000
with a lot of people who work

00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:20.000
who are leaders in the field of science communication to talk to us about communicating about earthquakes.

00:00:20.000 --> 00:00:27.000
And, you know, I know that we're kind of silly in this workshop, we have a vibe. Our guests here are new, they may not know who we are, so I'm just going to tell everyone,

00:00:27.000 --> 00:00:32.000
I expect everyone to put on their Sirius hats and be on their best behavior for this last session.

00:00:32.000 --> 00:00:34.000
Okay, so to take us away,

00:00:34.000 --> 00:00:44.000
I want to give us over to our fantastic moderators, Max Schneider and Mark Benthian.

00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:45.000
Hey, Sarah.

00:00:45.000 --> 00:00:52.000
Thank you so much, Sarah, and thank you to everyone who stuck it out until the end of the third day.

00:00:52.000 --> 00:01:01.000
Uh, I'm really grateful to be here and to be co-moderating this session. Uh, so we spent the last 3 days in this… in this workshop.

00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:05.000
talking… communicating to each other about earthquakes and their hazards.

00:01:05.000 --> 00:01:14.000
And in this last session, we're going to take a step back and think about how we should be communicating with other people who are not in our fields.

00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:20.000
Um, who might be feeling an earthquake or thinking about an earthquake for the first time when the ground starts shaking.

00:01:20.000 --> 00:01:28.000
Um, and so we have a fabulous set of panelists. We are in a rectangular format on your screen, but this is a roundtable discussion.

00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:35.000
And before I let them introduce themselves, um, I'm gonna introduce myself. My name is Max Schneider, I'm a research statistician.

00:01:35.000 --> 00:01:39.000
in the Earthquake Science Center of the USGS in Moffat Field.

00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:49.000
I do research, among other things, on the visual communication of earthquake forecasts, and on doing user-centered design for maps, interactive systems, all sorts of visual products.

00:01:49.000 --> 00:01:55.000
For, uh, earthquake forecasts. Mark, would you introduce yourself?

00:01:55.000 --> 00:01:59.000
Hi, everyone. I'm Mark Benthian with the Statewide California Earthquake Center.

00:01:59.000 --> 00:02:05.000
of which I'm very proud to, as of March, to have worked with.

00:02:05.000 --> 00:02:06.000
Wow.

00:02:06.000 --> 00:02:07.000
Uh, on staff for 30 years, although I was an intern a couple years before that, too.

00:02:07.000 --> 00:02:10.000
Congratulations.

00:02:10.000 --> 00:02:19.000
And I lead our public education and preparedness activities. Uh, as part of that, lead the statewide earthquake Country Alliance.

00:02:19.000 --> 00:02:23.000
with a lot of support from California Office of Emergency Services and FEMA.

00:02:23.000 --> 00:02:32.000
Uh, and NSF and EOSGS2. And also, uh, with support from FEMA, lead the Great Shakeout earthquake drills.

00:02:32.000 --> 00:02:36.000
And really happy to be part of this panel here today.

00:02:36.000 --> 00:02:43.000
And to hear what our great panelists will have to share, we have some questions lined up.

00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:48.000
But, uh, really, they're just to get the discussion going.

00:02:48.000 --> 00:02:56.000
And we really welcome your input to that, so Max is going to be asking the questions, I'm going to be looking at the chat, please do.

00:02:56.000 --> 00:03:05.000
Add questions. We'll try to, uh, kind of go with your questions as we go along, and then there will be time at the end for additional questions.

00:03:05.000 --> 00:03:09.000
But we're going to start with our panelists introducing themselves.

00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:10.000
Uh, Max, do you want to call? People to…

00:03:10.000 --> 00:03:20.000
Yes. Yes, so we'd like each panelist to just take a couple minutes to, um, introduce your work and how you communicate about earthquakes and related topics.

00:03:20.000 --> 00:03:26.000
Um, and I will be picking on people. Because moderator's privilege. So, Brian, would you go first?

00:03:26.000 --> 00:03:31.000
Sure, I'm Brian Hackney, I'm the science reporter at the CBS station in San Francisco.

00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:38.000
Um, my own background's in physics and engineering academically, and then I got into this business because I…

00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:41.000
Loved Jules Bergman back in the days.

00:03:41.000 --> 00:03:47.000
too long ago for most of you. But, um, I've been doing earthquake reporting for decades.

00:03:47.000 --> 00:03:52.000
Um, and that's, uh, that's pretty much what I do. I mean, the… generally in…

00:03:52.000 --> 00:03:54.000
Our business, Broadcast Television.

00:03:54.000 --> 00:03:59.000
It's responsive, it's reactive, and then it ignores the topic. So…

00:03:59.000 --> 00:04:04.000
We're all about the magnitude 5.1 and getting one of you on the phone to talk about it.

00:04:04.000 --> 00:04:07.000
So that's pretty much what we do in the, in the, uh…

00:04:07.000 --> 00:04:11.000
TV biz.

00:04:11.000 --> 00:04:12.000
Mm-hmm.

00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:14.000
Thank you, Brian. Uh, Jack, would you go next?

00:04:14.000 --> 00:04:20.000
Hi, everyone. My name's Jack Lee. I am a science reporter with the San Francisco Chronicle on the Dana team.

00:04:20.000 --> 00:04:26.000
Um, so I cover a bunch of different science topics, um, for earthquakes specifically, I've been writing about

00:04:26.000 --> 00:04:31.000
Some breaking news events, like the San Ramon quakes, um, also when new studies come out, I'll write about those.

00:04:31.000 --> 00:04:36.000
So yeah, so I've appreciated the opportunity talking with USGS scientists and other scientists, too.

00:04:36.000 --> 00:04:40.000
Um, and yeah, I noticed a topic that our reader is really interested in is earthquakes, maybe understandably.

00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:43.000
Um, yeah, if I did to…

00:04:43.000 --> 00:04:46.000
wheel on his table. Roundtable.

00:04:46.000 --> 00:04:50.000
Glad to have you here, Jack. Uh, Paul, would you go next?

00:04:50.000 --> 00:04:54.000
Sure, uh, thanks. I am, uh, Paul Rogers, I'm the.

00:04:54.000 --> 00:04:59.000
Environment and Natural Resources reporter with the San Jose Mercury News in Silicon Valley.

00:04:59.000 --> 00:05:11.000
Uh, I've been with the newspaper for 37 years, um, and uh… One of the first stories I covered was the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. I was the night police reporter on October 17th.

00:05:11.000 --> 00:05:15.000
1989 at 504. And spent 5 years writing about it after that. Um… I've also been the managing editor for science coverage at KQED.

00:05:15.000 --> 00:05:22.000
Wow.

00:05:22.000 --> 00:05:27.000
Uh, the NPR and PBS station in San Francisco for about 15 years.

00:05:27.000 --> 00:05:32.000
Um, what else? I've taught science writing at, uh, at Cal and at UC.

00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:37.000
Santa Cruz, and we had a science writer for a long time, Lisa Krieger, who some of you may know.

00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:40.000
who covered earthquakes for about 40 years. She has retired.

00:05:40.000 --> 00:05:48.000
And, um, I have taken on that slice of her beat, so… Many of you here know a lot more about earthquakes than I do.

00:05:48.000 --> 00:05:53.000
But earthquake scientists who've talked to me. will often hear me say.

00:05:53.000 --> 00:05:57.000
Uh, explain this to my grandparents, who are reading the newspaper tomorrow morning.

00:05:57.000 --> 00:06:04.000
And eating their Wheaties. So, I'm gonna… keep driving that point home. Thanks for having me.

00:06:04.000 --> 00:06:06.000
Thanks for being here, Paula. Steve, you're up.

00:06:06.000 --> 00:06:11.000
Sure, thank you. Um, so background is in landslide engineering, geology, and hydrology.

00:06:11.000 --> 00:06:19.000
I am currently the media lead and spokesperson for Natural Hazards for the Bureau for the USGS, although I have been

00:06:19.000 --> 00:06:24.000
Part of the purge and consolidation of last year as being a federal employee, I'm now with the Department of

00:06:24.000 --> 00:06:27.000
The interior, rather than the USGS.

00:06:27.000 --> 00:06:34.000
I am a FEMA ICS Incident Command System and Wildfire Public Information Officer certified.

00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:39.000
And I am kind of like the lead spokesperson and public information officer for

00:06:39.000 --> 00:06:44.000
earthquakes. So, both domestic and internationally for USGS.

00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:47.000
Oh, also co-founder of the National Association of Science Communicators.

00:06:47.000 --> 00:06:51.000
So, for science and communication folks out there, um…

00:06:51.000 --> 00:06:57.000
We have conferences and meetings for that.

00:06:57.000 --> 00:06:58.000
Yeah.

00:06:58.000 --> 00:06:59.000
Yeah, thank you.

00:06:59.000 --> 00:07:01.000
We are so glad you're with us, Steve. Ross, please introduce yourself.

00:07:01.000 --> 00:07:04.000
So I spent 30 years at the USGS.

00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:09.000
And when big earthquakes struck, my chief scientist would say, you're not doing anything useful, you talk to the press.

00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:16.000
So I somehow learned how to do that as a result of my valuable contribution.

00:07:16.000 --> 00:07:24.000
Uh, when I left the survey, uh, 15 years ago, I started Tembr, which does seismic risk analysis for the insurance industry.

00:07:24.000 --> 00:07:28.000
But we also have a public mission. We produce the Templar Earth

00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:33.000
Earth News, which is available freely to everyone, and the Tumblr app,

00:07:33.000 --> 00:07:37.000
Which is a seismic risk app that works everywhere in the world.

00:07:37.000 --> 00:07:50.000
I also teach scientific presentation at Stanford, and through the Seismological Society of America. So this is obviously a subject that means a lot to me.

00:07:50.000 --> 00:07:53.000
things for us. Last, but very much not least, Monica, take it away.

00:07:53.000 --> 00:08:03.000
So, thank you, everybody, for taking your afternoon to be on the call. As Max mentioned, I'm Monica Stoffel, Executive Director of the California Resiliency Alliance.

00:08:03.000 --> 00:08:12.000
Which is a nonprofit that really sits at that nexus between the public, private, and non-profit sectors, coordinating cross-sector information sharing and collaboration.

00:08:12.000 --> 00:08:19.000
On that, and so really looking at, kind of, fostering that cross-sector, cross-hazard, cross-disciplines,

00:08:19.000 --> 00:08:27.000
view to reveal how risks and systems infrastructures intersect, and really focusing also on

00:08:27.000 --> 00:08:35.000
the public, private, and non-profit professionals who have responsibilities and operational and organizational resilience.

00:08:35.000 --> 00:08:39.000
So unlike many of the others who are on this roundtable,

00:08:39.000 --> 00:08:45.000
the California Resiliency Alliance really doesn't focus on the general public, but more on those

00:08:45.000 --> 00:08:49.000
individuals involved with organizations,

00:08:49.000 --> 00:08:57.000
and engaging there, and so some of the information needs, challenges vary a little bit, potentially, from the general public.

00:08:57.000 --> 00:09:06.000
And I think that adds in a fun and unique aspect to this roundtable that we're having.

00:09:06.000 --> 00:09:17.000
Fantastic. So, as you can see, we have a broad range of, um… of professions and of, of… channels through which.

00:09:17.000 --> 00:09:24.000
the communication is done, and groups to which the communication of earthquakes and hazards are done.

00:09:24.000 --> 00:09:34.000
So my first question to the whole group. is… what is something that earthquake scientists do, or in how they provide information that you will then use?

00:09:34.000 --> 00:09:40.000
That makes what you do more difficult.

00:09:40.000 --> 00:09:41.000
Oh, yeah, go ahead.

00:09:41.000 --> 00:09:51.000
I'll jump in, um… I think, uh… Three things come to mind. One is, uh… act like they're speaking to other scientists.

00:09:51.000 --> 00:09:56.000
And forgetting that they're speaking to the guy who sells tires at Sears.

00:09:56.000 --> 00:10:02.000
Um, which is what most of our readers are. They're not people with, uh, advanced degrees in science.

00:10:02.000 --> 00:10:10.000
Um, and so, uh… really thinking about your audience before you speak is important. I used to tell students in my classes.

00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:16.000
Pretend that you have 15 seconds left on your cell phone battery and you're talking to your mother.

00:10:16.000 --> 00:10:18.000
When you start an interview, that's what you should do.

00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:22.000
Um, you have 15 seconds until it's cut off, what are you gonna tell her?

00:10:22.000 --> 00:10:29.000
focus on the big stuff. Um, second, availability. It's really important, obviously, when there's a big quake.

00:10:29.000 --> 00:10:38.000
Um, that you are available. A lot of. people, um, worry about putting out fancy press kits and, and, um.

00:10:38.000 --> 00:10:42.000
You know, having it read up and down the chain of command 10 different times, but.

00:10:42.000 --> 00:10:52.000
Um, what we're doing is history in a hurry, and um… You know, there's the old saying, I think it was Mark Twain, that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth.

00:10:52.000 --> 00:10:57.000
puts its boots on. And, um, as we all know, it's hard when bad information gets out to.

00:10:57.000 --> 00:11:02.000
correct it. So, getting good information out quickly, uh, and often we only need.

00:11:02.000 --> 00:11:11.000
a minute or two on the phone at the very beginning.

00:11:11.000 --> 00:11:12.000
Damn, I would…

00:11:12.000 --> 00:11:19.000
I think Paul's absolutely right. I've had, ever since Susan Garcia left, and actually ever since COVID,

00:11:19.000 --> 00:11:29.000
Geologists are not… they're 10% as available as they used to be. In the wake of a big quake, that's why I rely so much on the greatest communicator I've ever known in earthquakes, and that's Ross Stein.

00:11:29.000 --> 00:11:36.000
I have to keep going back to Ross. With the recent example of the Concord, uh, Concord Fault,

00:11:36.000 --> 00:11:41.000
A new choice of that being discovered, nobody wanted to talk about it. It was arduous.

00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:45.000
Many emails went unanswered to the very people who were supposed to be responding.

00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:48.000
And USJS is just…

00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:51.000
Almost… non-responsive.

00:11:51.000 --> 00:11:56.000
Luckily, Ross steered me to a couple of folks who are responsive, but…

00:11:56.000 --> 00:12:00.000
The rest would rather not see science communication as part of their mission.

00:12:00.000 --> 00:12:05.000
I think it's the most important part of what you guys do. What's the point of doing the sinus… the science?

00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:08.000
If you're not communicating it to the public.

00:12:08.000 --> 00:12:14.000
Who, after all, funds all this? So that, I think that, uh, Paul's quite right.

00:12:14.000 --> 00:12:18.000
Um, first, keeping it basic, yes, and also…

00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:27.000
showing this new crop of geologists that communication is part of the job.

00:12:27.000 --> 00:12:28.000
Steve, I saw you go unmuted. response?

00:12:28.000 --> 00:12:32.000
Yeah, there's a couple of things there. It's like, you know, Brian, work with me. I'm more than happy to track down

00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:37.000
See, I appreciate that. You were one of the guys that I sent emails to I didn't hear back from.

00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:41.000
Yeah. Um, I do what I can.

00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:49.000
But, um, yeah, so I will echo what Paul said. In my experience, it's coaxing scientists to want to talk, and then when they do,

00:12:49.000 --> 00:12:52.000
to have it be… I don't want to…

00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:54.000
phrase it flippantly, but good enough.

00:12:54.000 --> 00:13:06.000
They like to be very technical, and I've gotten arguments about it's not earthquake hazards, earthquake shaking is a hazard, like, you don't need to have shaking in there, we get enough by saying that the earthquake is the hazard.

00:13:06.000 --> 00:13:09.000
And the precision in which scientists like to speak,

00:13:09.000 --> 00:13:15.000
to all audiences isn't necessary when we're trying to get information out quickly, and…

00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:23.000
in a, you know, good enough way so that we can then always update and add to the story, but if you don't get information out there quick enough, then it will be filled void with

00:13:23.000 --> 00:13:27.000
misinformation, or other people who you may not want to be speaking

00:13:27.000 --> 00:13:35.000
As the experts on something.

00:13:35.000 --> 00:13:43.000
I would say that the best way to learn how to convey science to the public is in a conversation with a reporter.

00:13:43.000 --> 00:13:45.000
It's almost the only way to learn.

00:13:45.000 --> 00:13:48.000
Because we come to this conversation with a

00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:53.000
story that we want to convey. But the reporter, let's say Paul, he knows his audience.

00:13:53.000 --> 00:13:55.000
He knows what they want to hear.

00:13:55.000 --> 00:14:01.000
And you're dancing around each other, until finally, in this conversation, you begin to realize,

00:14:01.000 --> 00:14:04.000
What does he need that I can convey?

00:14:04.000 --> 00:14:06.000
And then, all of that

00:14:06.000 --> 00:14:10.000
preceding conversation is basically preparation for saying,

00:14:10.000 --> 00:14:17.000
Okay, Paul, ask me this one question. And usually, that's the only thing that's used, because it takes…

00:14:17.000 --> 00:14:22.000
Listening to what a reporter is trying to do to understand how to convey what we do.

00:14:22.000 --> 00:14:32.000
We can't just figure this out on our own. We have to have those interactions.

00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:38.000
see that we have a hand up from Sue Huff, um, maybe related to an earlier point that was raised.

00:14:38.000 --> 00:14:47.000
Sue, do you want to, uh, unmute, and… Share?

00:14:47.000 --> 00:14:48.000
Sure.

00:14:48.000 --> 00:14:53.000
Yeah, if it's okay to jump in? So, I was sort of surprised by the exchange, um, with Brian.

00:14:53.000 --> 00:15:02.000
So I'm… I'm down in Pasadena with USGS. I've part of the social media team. I've… I'm one of the people who responds to media queries.

00:15:02.000 --> 00:15:09.000
And when there are events. You know, the queries go through OCAP, which is now.

00:15:09.000 --> 00:15:17.000
pretty much reduced to SOBE. So that's an issue that, that… has hit some of us. We don't have the full OCAP.

00:15:17.000 --> 00:15:21.000
staff that is… coordinating, like they used to.

00:15:21.000 --> 00:15:29.000
But that I've seen when media queries reach. Soapy, there's a media log, and everything gets responded to.

00:15:29.000 --> 00:15:38.000
So, it's sort of a surprise to hear that queries are from an important outlet.

00:15:38.000 --> 00:15:39.000
Yeah, surprised me too.

00:15:39.000 --> 00:15:44.000
Are… are going banking.

00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:45.000
Yeah, it's…

00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:46.000
I wondered if Sobe had…

00:15:46.000 --> 00:15:50.000
It just depends on the event and availability, and…

00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:53.000
the amount we can kind of cover, you know, in some cases, it's…

00:15:53.000 --> 00:15:58.000
a handful of scientists are available, other times it's a larger event, and there's a lot of inquiries, and…

00:15:58.000 --> 00:16:04.000
We lean more into the… depending on where it's at, like, you know, Southern California, there'll be the Caltech does the…

00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:07.000
press briefing, and we use that to provide the information.

00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:10.000
Until we can kind of get back and address any of the inquiries that came our way.

00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:14.000
Um, other domestic or international ones, it's a matter of

00:16:14.000 --> 00:16:18.000
When it happens, when the reporters are looking for information, and when we have

00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:24.000
the resources to kind of respond.

00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:29.000
There is an issue that we're able to… we're sort of, um, we're allowed to respond to.

00:16:29.000 --> 00:16:37.000
earthquake inquiries, an earthquake response situation. If it's a more general inquiry that a paper was published.

00:16:37.000 --> 00:16:45.000
And reporters are looking for comment. Then we were supposed to have to go get OCAP.

00:16:45.000 --> 00:16:58.000
permission. And now, OCAP has been decimated. And, um… It may be that people aren't sure they are able to respond.

00:16:58.000 --> 00:17:04.000
There have been some points in the chat added if people are… make sure to follow along about that issue.

00:17:04.000 --> 00:17:08.000
Not just USGS, I believe other government agencies in being restricted, and.

00:17:08.000 --> 00:17:15.000
Jillian, you were kind of, uh, asking a question about that in the chat. I don't know if you want to come on and ask her.

00:17:15.000 --> 00:17:16.000
Sorry, me?

00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:19.000
Um… Yeah, yes.

00:17:19.000 --> 00:17:20.000
Hmm.

00:17:20.000 --> 00:17:26.000
Sure, uh, okay, yeah. So, um, I was asking and then typing a follow-up, um, is that, um…

00:17:26.000 --> 00:17:38.000
So, I understand, like, when you're dealing with the initial data on something that the government agencies are often the ones who had that, but I wonder, as someone who's based at a university, kind of, um,

00:17:38.000 --> 00:17:40.000
Is there, like, uh, some sort of…

00:17:40.000 --> 00:17:50.000
standard procedure or reason that you would inherently go to the government scientists first, and also at what point do you then branch out to people at universities? And this is both just

00:17:50.000 --> 00:18:04.000
wondering, because a lot of us at universities are… well, I mean, we… I mean, are capable about talking about these things, but also a lot of universities don't have the, like, public affairs or officer permission thing, and also have a lot of…

00:18:04.000 --> 00:18:12.000
Experience, if we teach, working with audiences of people who don't know this stuff yet.

00:18:12.000 --> 00:18:18.000
Um, I can address that. Many of us who are expected when there's an earthquake, for example.

00:18:18.000 --> 00:18:22.000
to have something… to have a story posted within half an hour.

00:18:22.000 --> 00:18:25.000
Or an hour that a million people are gonna read.

00:18:25.000 --> 00:18:30.000
Um, and we want to get it right, obviously. We're writing, as I said, the first draft of history.

00:18:30.000 --> 00:18:44.000
We blast out, uh, queries to everybody. I mean, I'm sending them to Berkeley, I'm sending them to Stanford, to USGS, and I see Jack nodding. I mean, that's what we do, right? We just throw these pebbles in the water, watch them ripple out.

00:18:44.000 --> 00:18:47.000
and hope that somebody gets back to us within.

00:18:47.000 --> 00:18:53.000
the half an hour, and usually the first people who get back to us are in the story right at the top when we hit send.

00:18:53.000 --> 00:19:00.000
And then we keep updating it. Um, one thing universities can do is, as soon as a big event happens.

00:19:00.000 --> 00:19:03.000
or if we're coming up to the anniversary of a big event.

00:19:03.000 --> 00:19:09.000
put out a news bulletin saying, hey, here's our experts, here's how you reach them.

00:19:09.000 --> 00:19:13.000
Not at 5 o'clock that day. The train has already left the station.

00:19:13.000 --> 00:19:16.000
Right, after it's been cleared by 3 or 4 vice chancellors, no.

00:19:16.000 --> 00:19:22.000
Have those five, uh, earthquake experts and their cell numbers blast that out immediately.

00:19:22.000 --> 00:19:26.000
on your list, and some of us will call. I mean, I just mentioned earlier that.

00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:34.000
I wrote a story a few hours ago about the Trump administration EPA scrapping the endangerment finding for climate change.

00:19:34.000 --> 00:19:40.000
Right? Well, that story, I mean, they had a press conference in the White House, and immediately people are posting that story.

00:19:40.000 --> 00:19:46.000
Already some universities within 15 minutes had said, here's our experts, here's our comments, here's some.

00:19:46.000 --> 00:19:55.000
Quotes that we have, if you don't even have time to call us, or if we're overwhelmed. So you have to hold hands on this breaking news stuff. I mean, it used to be we all waited until 5 o'clock.

00:19:55.000 --> 00:20:07.000
then we could write for the newspaper the next day. You know, those days are gone. It's a 24-hour news cycle, so… Um, be more, um, assertive if you want to get in these stories. And I don't just even mean as universities. If you're an NGO.

00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:13.000
If you're a private company, um, you know. Last of stuff out there, put some quotes in there, tell us how to reach you.

00:20:13.000 --> 00:20:14.000
Right on. Thank you.

00:20:14.000 --> 00:20:18.000
Good advice.

00:20:18.000 --> 00:20:23.000
I'm wondering if there's any other last thoughts on this topic of availability and the tension.

00:20:23.000 --> 00:20:27.000
with limited resources before we move on to the next point.

00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:33.000
So, I actually don't have a point on that, so I want to open that up for anybody else who does have a last point.

00:20:33.000 --> 00:20:44.000
But taking another approach on this of what's something that earthquake scientists do, and how they provide it that makes things a little bit more difficult from the pre-event and

00:20:44.000 --> 00:20:48.000
kind of those involved in the planning side of things.

00:20:48.000 --> 00:20:58.000
So before I jump into that, were there any other points somebody wanted to make on what we had been talking about?

00:20:58.000 --> 00:20:59.000
Okay, then I'll jump on in. So,

00:20:59.000 --> 00:21:01.000
panelists?

00:21:01.000 --> 00:21:16.000
kind of taking this step back and looking at pre-event on that, because that is where a lot of the emergency managers, business continuity professionals, are trying to get access to information upon which to base their own decision-making.

00:21:16.000 --> 00:21:20.000
And for that, it's going back to kind of what's out there.

00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:23.000
from the scientists and the research community,

00:21:23.000 --> 00:21:34.000
And one of the trends that I've often seen is information on the Hayward Fault, on the San Andreas Fault, on some of these really big faults,

00:21:34.000 --> 00:21:39.000
It's pretty easy accessible on that, and there's a lot of information.

00:21:39.000 --> 00:21:54.000
But those are just a few of the faults that we have as a risk here in California, and just even looking at Northern California. And the Information Access to some of these other secondary faults, smaller faults, less well-known ones, becomes much more difficult.

00:21:54.000 --> 00:21:56.000
to H is simply find,

00:21:56.000 --> 00:22:06.000
And then even when you find it, the information about what are the unique risks on that, how quickly is it moving, what type of fault is it, is much

00:22:06.000 --> 00:22:10.000
Harder to get, and then it's often very technical.

00:22:10.000 --> 00:22:21.000
On that. So that creates, then, the challenges for those who are doing the planning and doing risk assessments on the private sector side of their needing to try and interpret

00:22:21.000 --> 00:22:27.000
technical information that often might go beyond what their literacy is in the science arena.

00:22:27.000 --> 00:22:30.000
Because they also need to translate that

00:22:30.000 --> 00:22:35.000
into something that makes sense for their senior leadership to try and get buy-in.

00:22:35.000 --> 00:22:44.000
And the senior leadership has their own priorities and motivators that they're needing to try and adapt that to, so having access to

00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:56.000
information they understand that's accessible and relatable becomes quite critical in that advanced planning aspect and threat assessment.

00:22:56.000 --> 00:22:59.000
So, that's kind of taking the step back from…

00:22:59.000 --> 00:23:08.000
post-event to looking at the pre-event information sharing.

00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:16.000
Are there any other thoughts on what earthquake scientists can provide you and your work in.

00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:27.000
in, uh, communicating to larger audiences. before an event.

00:23:27.000 --> 00:23:36.000
Let me ask a more targeted question. Um… What, uh, what do you think motivates.

00:23:36.000 --> 00:23:37.000
a bigger…

00:23:37.000 --> 00:23:39.000
the public to take preparedness actions, and what can earthquake scientists provide for that?

00:23:39.000 --> 00:23:44.000
A magnitude 5.

00:23:44.000 --> 00:23:45.000
Well, that's…

00:23:45.000 --> 00:23:46.000
That's… that's the only thing that… that's the only thing that motivates the public.

00:23:46.000 --> 00:23:47.000
What else?

00:23:47.000 --> 00:23:52.000
That's the hook. That's the hook we have to deal with what comes down the high… the… I suppose

00:23:52.000 --> 00:23:57.000
you know, a swarm of smaller earthquakes, or a big quake, yeah.

00:23:57.000 --> 00:23:59.000
something that everybody feels.

00:23:59.000 --> 00:24:02.000
Uh, that's the best kind of social media there is.

00:24:02.000 --> 00:24:05.000
And they want answers.

00:24:05.000 --> 00:24:09.000
Yep.

00:24:09.000 --> 00:24:15.000
I mean, people have busy lives, right? I mean, they're taking their kids to Little League games, they're trying to pay the rent, they.

00:24:15.000 --> 00:24:18.000
They're sitting in traffic, and they don't obsess over this stuff.

00:24:18.000 --> 00:24:27.000
I always chuckle when I see government agencies put out press releases about how it's… it's earthquake week, or whatever. It's like, nobody cares, that's not news. That doesn't affect them.

00:24:27.000 --> 00:24:31.000
Think about how many times you get bombarded by government agencies.

00:24:31.000 --> 00:24:48.000
with campaigns, you know, give a hoot, don't pollute, all these things, it's like… Only you can prevent forest fires. There's a million of them. They all just, like… It's just, like, PR speak, but it's something that is immediate and relevant that affects you financially or affects you and your family's safety.

00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:52.000
That's when they're paying attention, so I agree entirely with Ross.

00:24:52.000 --> 00:24:58.000
with Ross and Brian. Um, I also think that, um, you know, the elephant in the room, that we're kind of dancing around here is.

00:24:58.000 --> 00:25:07.000
The current administration has made it very difficult to communicate science. I'm not saying that, uh, as a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent.

00:25:07.000 --> 00:25:18.000
It's just the way it is. I mean, they fired lots and lots and lots of public affairs people. I talked to dozens of different folks in all sorts of Interior Department agencies all the time.

00:25:18.000 --> 00:25:21.000
I mean, most national parks don't have a spokesman anymore.

00:25:21.000 --> 00:25:25.000
They're not allowed to say anything about anything without clearing it through Washington.

00:25:25.000 --> 00:25:29.000
And when you ask a question, it gets routed up to, you know.

00:25:29.000 --> 00:25:37.000
press at nps.gov, or press at fishandwildlife.gov, or press… You know, and you get one sentence answer that doesn't answer the question.

00:25:37.000 --> 00:25:44.000
what the people who are making those decisions think they're doing is controlling the narrative. In fact, they're losing it.

00:25:44.000 --> 00:25:45.000
So…

00:25:45.000 --> 00:25:52.000
Because we're going to write the stories anyway. So, if there's a false alarm, 5.9 earthquake reported in Nevada, and nobody wants to say anything.

00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:53.000
We're still writing that story, you're just not gonna be in it.

00:25:53.000 --> 00:25:56.000
Here, here, Paul. Let me, let me interrupt.

00:25:56.000 --> 00:25:58.000
And you and I talked actually, Steve, on that day, so I'm not criticizing that one. You were very helpful on that day.

00:25:58.000 --> 00:26:02.000
No, no, no, I was gonna say, what I need to say, though, is we continue to conduct our research and maintain our mission, as appropriated by Congress,

00:26:02.000 --> 00:26:05.000
Yeah.

00:26:05.000 --> 00:26:09.000
And guided by the administration's priorities.

00:26:09.000 --> 00:26:18.000
Right, and I'm very, very sympathetic to all my friends who do these jobs. I mean, I've… worked with 5 or 6 presidential administrations and.

00:26:18.000 --> 00:26:27.000
They go up and down, and they change depending on the person. Um, frankly, the Newsom administration in California right now is not very good at communicating science. The Brown administration was better.

00:26:27.000 --> 00:26:38.000
So sometimes it's not even party, but, but. I am very sympathetic to people in these communication jobs, and I know what they're dealing with. I know they're on eggshells, I know there aren't many of them left, so…

00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:44.000
we're not mad at you. We get what's happening, and we're still trying to inform the public as best we can.

00:26:44.000 --> 00:26:49.000
But just let your bosses know, we're still gonna do these stories, whether or not you return our calls.

00:26:49.000 --> 00:26:52.000
Well, now we've fully…

00:26:52.000 --> 00:26:57.000
In the chat, there's some discussion, uh, some comments that hopefully everybody's following along too.

00:26:57.000 --> 00:27:04.000
that are kind of getting at the type of information that you can get without talking to people, and.

00:27:04.000 --> 00:27:11.000
perhaps through scientists posting on social media. Um, graphics that are being shared.

00:27:11.000 --> 00:27:17.000
How useful is that? How much are you looking for that, and how can that be better.

00:27:17.000 --> 00:27:18.000
available and known for who to be following.

00:27:18.000 --> 00:27:28.000
Mark… So, could I just slightly rephrase the question? And it could be about social media and any of these other channels.

00:27:28.000 --> 00:27:35.000
But let's say that magnitude 5 earthquake happens. What exactly do you need from a scientist in the first 30 minutes?

00:27:35.000 --> 00:27:36.000
Well, in broadcast, we need a scientist on the air.

00:27:36.000 --> 00:27:39.000
And what do you not need?

00:27:39.000 --> 00:27:41.000
Um, we need somebody on the air, and you know what?

00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:49.000
And I think you guys know this, what are we going to be asking? How big was it? Where was it? What fault was it? Does it mean that a bigger earthquake's on the way?

00:27:49.000 --> 00:27:53.000
It's those four things. Um, can we expect aftershocks? It's those five things.

00:27:53.000 --> 00:27:57.000
And from a broadcast point of view, in the…

00:27:57.000 --> 00:28:04.000
With the depth that we usually go into things now. That would be it. But speed is of the essence, and that's why

00:28:04.000 --> 00:28:10.000
there needs to be somebody locally, whether it's… you know, and Caltech is terrific. I mean,

00:28:10.000 --> 00:28:16.000
Caltrucks… Caltech is the platinum standard. They're terrific about being responsive.

00:28:16.000 --> 00:28:21.000
Um, and up here, it's tough. You know, it has become tough.

00:28:21.000 --> 00:28:29.000
other markets, I don't know, but I mean, in general, that's what any television market anywhere in the US is going to need. As for print, um, I don't know, Paul.

00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:34.000
What do you need in the first 30 minutes? I would think the same thing.

00:28:34.000 --> 00:28:37.000
Yeah, and the basic question of, is this a foreshock to a bigger quake? That's what most people are worried about.

00:28:37.000 --> 00:28:39.000
Yep. Yep.

00:28:39.000 --> 00:28:41.000
Yep.

00:28:41.000 --> 00:28:48.000
Jack, I'm curious, is there anything else that print would.

00:28:48.000 --> 00:28:49.000
No, honestly, I feel like Brian and Paul

00:28:49.000 --> 00:28:51.000
uh, benefit from that broadcast didn't mention.

00:28:51.000 --> 00:28:54.000
already touched on everything, but I think one thing also is that

00:28:54.000 --> 00:29:02.000
I think this came up, is that we can also… for digital stuff, we can update stories, so we want information, basically, as quick as possible, but, you know,

00:29:02.000 --> 00:29:05.000
We might follow up for more additional context, um, just…

00:29:05.000 --> 00:29:13.000
Down the road, but just keeping in mind that, like, the information we include right at the beginning of the story isn't where it's… it doesn't have to be where it stops, like, you can add more stuff afterwards, after…

00:29:13.000 --> 00:29:16.000
But we just want to get information out to readers as we can.

00:29:16.000 --> 00:29:26.000
Yeah, Mark, if I can make one more point, too, and I think one of the reasons, perhaps, that a scientist might be reluctant in the wake of some event of going on the air without having a great

00:29:26.000 --> 00:29:36.000
deal of time to look at things, is that they may be afraid that they might be asked a question that they don't know the response to, and the best response in a situation like that is, I don't know.

00:29:36.000 --> 00:29:48.000
There's nothing wrong with I don't know. It increases your credibility. Um, and it's fine, because I think you will know the basics, which we just talked about, the magnitude, the does it mean a bigger quake's on the way thing.

00:29:48.000 --> 00:29:53.000
And if a reporter, you know, you're live on the air on some morning show, asks you something off the wall,

00:29:53.000 --> 00:29:58.000
Um, you know, I would respond, well, that's a little off the wall, we just don't know.

00:29:58.000 --> 00:30:00.000
And there's nothing wrong with that.

00:30:00.000 --> 00:30:03.000
Even though in science, you're always supposed to know, but…

00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:06.000
Um, yeah.

00:30:06.000 --> 00:30:08.000
We've got a hand raise from Andy Michael. Andy, please unmute.

00:30:08.000 --> 00:30:11.000
And Max, since you're, um…

00:30:11.000 --> 00:30:15.000
the moderator, I thought I'd jump in right. One of the questions is,

00:30:15.000 --> 00:30:19.000
Are there going to be aftershocks? Is there going to be something larger? It's actually the same question.

00:30:19.000 --> 00:30:21.000
And we do answer it.

00:30:21.000 --> 00:30:26.000
Um, and we, as I think Hannah Rabinowitz pointed out, that we actually have…

00:30:26.000 --> 00:30:32.000
commentary page that's written in… by Sarah McBride was written in supposedly AP style.

00:30:32.000 --> 00:30:39.000
And we have seen in the print media those bits getting used very well, and it's made a big difference.

00:30:39.000 --> 00:30:42.000
But, you know, if there's things we can do better with that,

00:30:42.000 --> 00:30:45.000
Um… that would be really handy to know.

00:30:45.000 --> 00:30:49.000
Um, now, that doesn't answer your need to have someone

00:30:49.000 --> 00:30:53.000
reading that out loud on broadcast, but…

00:30:53.000 --> 00:30:55.000
Um…

00:30:55.000 --> 00:31:02.000
Or print. We want somebody to say. Hey, this quake might have scared people today in San Ramon, but it doesn't mean a big one's coming, said Joe Smith.

00:31:02.000 --> 00:31:05.000
So, with… with reduced staff,

00:31:05.000 --> 00:31:06.000
There can be the need to

00:31:06.000 --> 00:31:09.000
Well, yeah. That's the issue.

00:31:09.000 --> 00:31:12.000
Make some compromises and say the USGS has said.

00:31:12.000 --> 00:31:19.000
And… but there is one thing, that forecast comes out at about 20 minutes, and the reason it comes out at that point…

00:31:19.000 --> 00:31:24.000
is at that moment, it's heavily dependent on the main shock magnitude, which can take up to about 10 or so minutes to settle down.

00:31:24.000 --> 00:31:28.000
So, yeah, we're not really ready to make that statement

00:31:28.000 --> 00:31:32.000
beyond, like, yes, there would probably be aftershocks in 5 minutes.

00:31:32.000 --> 00:31:39.000
But we are ready at about the 20 minute to… I feel way to actually put out exactly 20 minutes, or maybe at 25, but…

00:31:39.000 --> 00:31:40.000
But in any case…

00:31:40.000 --> 00:31:49.000
So, I… social media, uh, Andy, social media is very helpful in that regard. I mean, if, you know, people have joked about Twitter, but I still use Twitter constantly. It's very helpful.

00:31:49.000 --> 00:31:54.000
I, you know, there's so many other places, that's a place that I know a lot of folks are.

00:31:54.000 --> 00:32:04.000
So, if USGS says there was just a 5.1 earthquake here, and the chances are 5% of a bigger earthquake happening in the next 24 hours or week or whatever.

00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:09.000
We can use that if you're getting hundreds of phone calls at the same time. It's like, just put something somewhere.

00:32:09.000 --> 00:32:18.000
So, so it is somewhere. It is on the event page, but you would rather have it on Twitter.

00:32:18.000 --> 00:32:19.000
Okay.

00:32:19.000 --> 00:32:22.000
Sure. No, I mean, we take it off the event page as well, and the event pages are great. I mean, I like the event pages for contacts. Often.

00:32:22.000 --> 00:32:29.000
When an earthquake happens, I'll say, this was, you know, the largest earthquake in 3 years in the nine-county Bay Area.

00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:39.000
and I don't have to have a scientist do that, right? I can look at the page. I love that page, but… Again, it goes to hand-holding, particularly on general assignment reporters who don't normally cover science.

00:32:39.000 --> 00:32:45.000
I've seen that over my career, yeah. Okay, thanks.

00:32:45.000 --> 00:32:49.000
Are there any other, uh, thoughts from the panelists about.

00:32:49.000 --> 00:32:54.000
about that kind of information. Being more publicly available, easily.

00:32:54.000 --> 00:32:55.000
accessible.

00:32:55.000 --> 00:33:02.000
About 6 months ago, I gave a training, a couple-hour training, to 60 CBS reporters

00:33:02.000 --> 00:33:12.000
With a focus on, okay, an earthquake has occurred, what can you get in 15 minutes that you can go onto the air with? And of course, we start with the USGS website.

00:33:12.000 --> 00:33:16.000
Which has a great deal of information, but you need to know how to get in there and get it.

00:33:16.000 --> 00:33:26.000
It's not particularly TV-friendly, that's not apparently part of its design, which is an issue for them in terms of aspect ratio and the ease of information.

00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:29.000
And then I took them to the Tumblr website, where you… which is…

00:33:29.000 --> 00:33:39.000
a little more digestible, and also immediately says something about, well, what's the likelihood of this event? Was this in a high-hazard area? And what might you expect?

00:33:39.000 --> 00:33:42.000
So, in fact,

00:33:42.000 --> 00:33:48.000
reporters can be helped to get that information when they need it. And then I gave them, like, a two-page

00:33:48.000 --> 00:33:57.000
Uh, cheat sheet, so they can grab that when the earthquake occurs, and they know how to burrow in there, at least get the information that can go online.

00:33:57.000 --> 00:34:05.000
And I did my best to give them coordinates of people who they could reach immediately, who agreed to do so with their cell numbers.

00:34:05.000 --> 00:34:11.000
Because, obviously, that's just as important as what you might get off the web.

00:34:11.000 --> 00:34:21.000
We could do more of that. Everybody could do more of that. The survey could do more of that. That would be, I think, very welcome.

00:34:21.000 --> 00:34:25.000
Thanks, Ross. I… there's a hand up from Su…

00:34:25.000 --> 00:34:31.000
Yeah, it sort of builds on Ross's comment, but it's a question for Brian, so I'm part of the USGS Quakes.

00:34:31.000 --> 00:34:34.000
Twitter team, I don't know if that's one of the feeds that you look at.

00:34:34.000 --> 00:34:44.000
We have an informal. review process that no one person is supposed to tweet something, which it gets cumbersome if you're trying to do things in the heat of the moment.

00:34:44.000 --> 00:34:47.000
it's going to take a bit of time to find somebody.

00:34:47.000 --> 00:34:52.000
the one we have, sort of, the okay to tweet.

00:34:52.000 --> 00:34:56.000
a sort of bread and butter, an earthquake happened? Did you feel it? Please tell us.

00:34:56.000 --> 00:35:01.000
You're suggesting that a… simple statement on aftershocks.

00:35:01.000 --> 00:35:08.000
would be useful. I'm wondering if anything else, and this sort of gets to what Ross was talking about, but are there any other very simple.

00:35:08.000 --> 00:35:12.000
bits of information that we could tweet out that would be helpful to you.

00:35:12.000 --> 00:35:21.000
It's probably always a good opportunity, going to what Jack and Paul were saying in the aftermath, what you need to get people's attention is a quake. Well, we've… even if it's just a 4.6,

00:35:21.000 --> 00:35:24.000
at least we've momentarily gotten their attention, so I…

00:35:24.000 --> 00:35:30.000
I think it might never hurt with everything to have a link to preparedness tips, because…

00:35:30.000 --> 00:35:34.000
You know, it's an unfortunate aspect of this business that

00:35:34.000 --> 00:35:37.000
To get people's attention

00:35:37.000 --> 00:35:40.000
You kind of have to…

00:35:40.000 --> 00:35:45.000
Trying to think of another word. Frighten them. In a 4.6 or 5.0 will frighten them.

00:35:45.000 --> 00:35:48.000
And it'll get their attention, and if there's something…

00:35:48.000 --> 00:35:51.000
Let me try to condense what I'm saying. If…

00:35:51.000 --> 00:35:55.000
along with the earthquake stuff, you have earthquake prep stuff.

00:35:55.000 --> 00:35:58.000
that really grabs their attention.

00:35:58.000 --> 00:36:02.000
Like, after a 7.4, a repeat of Northridge

00:36:02.000 --> 00:36:06.000
You're gonna be able to talk to your kid, you know, things like that. You need a plan.

00:36:06.000 --> 00:36:11.000
Um, so it might not be a bad idea to consistently put out a preparedness link, because I think,

00:36:11.000 --> 00:36:15.000
ultimately, that's… that's what it's all about.

00:36:15.000 --> 00:36:16.000
Yeah.

00:36:16.000 --> 00:36:22.000
But what I was talking about from a broadcast perspective was they want a talking head on the air. It's great to have, um, did you feel it, and all that stuff.

00:36:22.000 --> 00:36:30.000
Because we can say that, but it's better to have an expert saying, like, you know, Ross or Paul was saying, a little bit of hand-holding.

00:36:30.000 --> 00:36:33.000
From a geologist, or seismologists, geophysicists saying…

00:36:33.000 --> 00:36:39.000
You know, we get a earthquakes in the Salton Sea all the time, and one of these days,

00:36:39.000 --> 00:36:43.000
And you need to think about one of these days, but this 4.6 that we had today,

00:36:43.000 --> 00:36:46.000
probably is not going to lead to something bigger.

00:36:46.000 --> 00:36:48.000
I don't know if I answered that question.

00:36:48.000 --> 00:36:50.000
Great. Yeah, and I just, you know, what can we distill down to this week?

00:36:50.000 --> 00:37:01.000
Yeah, we like… yeah, we like… we like talking heads, and I would think the caveat would… not the caveat, but the, uh, the, you know, what you would put on as a Phillip to any discussion is…

00:37:01.000 --> 00:37:06.000
Nothing happened today, but it's going to happen, and you really need to talk to your family about what it is.

00:37:06.000 --> 00:37:12.000
Yes, I would say the one comment with the talking head one is just the availability.

00:37:12.000 --> 00:37:13.000
Yeah.

00:37:13.000 --> 00:37:14.000
I do think… I…

00:37:14.000 --> 00:37:21.000
Because I'm trying to think of, like… I was trying to dig up their media log, but, like, the New York quake, the 4.8. I mean, we had…

00:37:21.000 --> 00:37:22.000
Oh my god.

00:37:22.000 --> 00:37:24.000
near 500 media inquiries. I can't get every quarter, 500 reporters to talk.

00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:25.000
wait a minute, where was this?

00:37:25.000 --> 00:37:27.000
or scientists to tell. The New York one, the New Jersey, the 4.8?

00:37:27.000 --> 00:37:28.000
Oh, God. Yeah.

00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:33.000
So, and it's like, but even, like, some of the ones that are in California, LA, you'll get, you know,

00:37:33.000 --> 00:37:43.000
four dozen, all within a

00:37:43.000 --> 00:37:44.000
What?

00:37:44.000 --> 00:37:45.000
30-minute period, and like, well, we have 6 scientists on staff, we could do a press conference, potentially do it, but everybody wants that individual talking head. Well, it's really hard.

00:37:45.000 --> 00:37:48.000
To get talking heads, then it becomes that prioritization of, like,

00:37:48.000 --> 00:37:54.000
Were you gonna do TV versus print? Are we gonna do online? Are we gonna do big outlets versus local outlets? Who's being impacted?

00:37:54.000 --> 00:37:55.000
And trying to navigate it.

00:37:55.000 --> 00:37:58.000
You're gonna do TV vs. Sprint, that's what you'll do, Paul. TV vs. Sprint.

00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:00.000
Yeah.

00:38:00.000 --> 00:38:04.000
It's getting you guys, Ross, but that's what you did at Parkfield, right? I mean, you did have a press conference.

00:38:04.000 --> 00:38:05.000
Yeah.

00:38:05.000 --> 00:38:06.000
Yeah, that's what we used to do.

00:38:06.000 --> 00:38:07.000
When it was big.

00:38:07.000 --> 00:38:09.000
Yeah.

00:38:09.000 --> 00:38:14.000
Press conferences are good. Also, um, Steve, you raise a great question. If you have.

00:38:14.000 --> 00:38:18.000
an event like that, and 500 people all bombarding you at the same time for.

00:38:18.000 --> 00:38:25.000
an interview, um… It's useful sometimes to, you know, just.

00:38:25.000 --> 00:38:26.000
Oh, yeah.

00:38:26.000 --> 00:38:27.000
record a scientist for 60 seconds. Um, I'm serious, in the lab, on video.

00:38:27.000 --> 00:38:29.000
Oh, I know, it's… it's…

00:38:29.000 --> 00:38:35.000
Right? Saying, here's what it is, just take your best talker, and have him or her explain.

00:38:35.000 --> 00:38:39.000
Here's what it is, answer the four questions that Brian just put up, and post that on your Facebook and your Twitter page, and.

00:38:39.000 --> 00:38:41.000
Yes.

00:38:41.000 --> 00:38:43.000
TV will use it. I know, because I used to run a TV show.

00:38:43.000 --> 00:38:45.000
Yeah.

00:38:45.000 --> 00:38:46.000
It's like, we'll use that stuff. Yeah, they're helpful.

00:38:46.000 --> 00:38:52.000
That's been operational update videos. We do them in fire all the time, but we tried… we've talked about it, and we've tried to do it for years, and then it goes back to the…

00:38:52.000 --> 00:38:56.000
I'll be blunt, the charisma part. Like, you want to find somebody that can actually do it, where it's not

00:38:56.000 --> 00:38:59.000
Yeah.

00:38:59.000 --> 00:39:04.000
they're reading the script across, and it's like, it's gotta be usable, and it's…

00:39:04.000 --> 00:39:06.000
Most people, it's not their jobs to be in front of…

00:39:06.000 --> 00:39:09.000
In front of a camera, and to have them do it with…

00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:15.000
Charm and grace, and urgency, and have it done, and be able to do the editing to then get it posted.

00:39:15.000 --> 00:39:18.000
And then we also run into some obstacles internally with

00:39:18.000 --> 00:39:21.000
getting something posted. Like, we don't have…

00:39:21.000 --> 00:39:24.000
We only have limited outlets that we, as a bureau, can actually

00:39:24.000 --> 00:39:28.000
put materials out, and who has access to put those materials out.

00:39:28.000 --> 00:39:29.000
So…

00:39:29.000 --> 00:39:34.000
Yeah. Well, find the next Ross Stein. I mean, in the New Crop, because that pole, that's a great idea.

00:39:34.000 --> 00:39:36.000
That would be very useful, yeah.

00:39:36.000 --> 00:39:37.000
That's it.

00:39:37.000 --> 00:39:43.000
I think the problem for many scientists is we feel that it's self-aggrandizing to go to the press.

00:39:43.000 --> 00:39:52.000
with, hey, I'm ready to talk to the press. We are nervous that this is viewed as, in some sense, unscientific.

00:39:52.000 --> 00:39:53.000
Mm-hmm.

00:39:53.000 --> 00:40:01.000
And we are thinking about how what we say will be received by other scientists, rather than thinking about that we're really talking to our mother's friends.

00:40:01.000 --> 00:40:06.000
Uh, who, you know, the safest possible audience, but they just want to understand what we know.

00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:11.000
It's hard to change that culture, but I think this is the moment to change the culture, because

00:40:11.000 --> 00:40:20.000
The backstory of the contraction of science funding and support is that it indicates that we haven't done a good enough job

00:40:20.000 --> 00:40:29.000
Explaining to the public the importance of what we do. The excitement about what we do, and the value for everybody individually.

00:40:29.000 --> 00:40:35.000
So, this is our moment, actually, to change that culture in a manner where we lean into that.

00:40:35.000 --> 00:40:38.000
So, the public says, yes.

00:40:38.000 --> 00:40:44.000
And the other thing that we're working against is, I think in the reptilian part of California's brains,

00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:46.000
They don't think earthquakes occur anymore.

00:40:46.000 --> 00:40:50.000
They've gone away, they've been replaced by flood and fire.

00:40:50.000 --> 00:40:55.000
And so they're perfectly willing to ignore the whole thing. The combination of…

00:40:55.000 --> 00:40:58.000
The ascendancy of those hazards and the

00:40:58.000 --> 00:41:05.000
seismic quiet means that we have to overcome that in some way. Like, Brian says, without scaring them.

00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:07.000
But in some sense, inspiring them.

00:41:07.000 --> 00:41:13.000
to say, hey, I can… I can prepare my family for this.

00:41:13.000 --> 00:41:20.000
We've had a lot of focus on this discussion on their immediate information right after an earthquake happens, and Ross, you're really bringing up.

00:41:20.000 --> 00:41:26.000
kind of the, uh, how to interest people in between when we aren't having the earthquakes and.

00:41:26.000 --> 00:41:28.000
you know, that could be a question to the panel of.

00:41:28.000 --> 00:41:34.000
You know, what are you… what do you think might be interesting that you're not hearing from us in between.

00:41:34.000 --> 00:41:41.000
Uh, big earthquakes that… There could be more stories about, or that we should be approaching you about when.

00:41:41.000 --> 00:41:45.000
Maybe there's, you know, scientific results, and what's the best way to do that?

00:41:45.000 --> 00:41:52.000
Well, I can give you the story arc that we experienced. There's the initial first day of what happened, where, how bad was it.

00:41:52.000 --> 00:41:55.000
Then it transitions into, uh…

00:41:55.000 --> 00:41:58.000
Response and Recovery, and then who's at fault.

00:41:58.000 --> 00:42:03.000
And those are where we have to back out, and it's not our place to talk about why buildings were collapsing in certain areas,

00:42:03.000 --> 00:42:06.000
Etc. And then you have that small window at the end where

00:42:06.000 --> 00:42:08.000
I'm not a big fan of the, uh…

00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:14.000
Deficit model teachable moment thing of, like, well, we have your attention, let's get them now, where it's like…

00:42:14.000 --> 00:42:19.000
If there's things that need to be helped and addressed, but there's that small window at the end where you've…

00:42:19.000 --> 00:42:21.000
day one or two, response,

00:42:21.000 --> 00:42:24.000
Date 3, 4, 5, recovery and blame.

00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:28.000
And then day 5 and 6 is, like, we can talk about preparedness for next time.

00:42:28.000 --> 00:42:30.000
Maybe, um, but it's…

00:42:30.000 --> 00:42:33.000
At least that's what I've kind of always seen. I don't know if…

00:42:33.000 --> 00:42:38.000
I don't know if else agrees with that, or…

00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:43.000
Yeah, I think that's generally right. Also, though, when there aren't big disasters.

00:42:43.000 --> 00:42:50.000
Um, it is useful. for earthquake scientists and PIOs, and I say this.

00:42:50.000 --> 00:42:51.000
Yeah.

00:42:51.000 --> 00:42:54.000
to folks at other agencies as well, like the fire agencies or the flood agencies.

00:42:54.000 --> 00:42:58.000
to have connections and conversations with journalists, I mean.

00:42:58.000 --> 00:43:04.000
There aren't that many people in each state, and including California, who regularly cover earthquakes as part of their beat.

00:43:04.000 --> 00:43:12.000
I mean, it's probably 20. Um, and, uh… I think… I always say to scientists.

00:43:12.000 --> 00:43:19.000
you need to network with those people the same way you network with other colleagues. I know it's not rewarded in the academy.

00:43:19.000 --> 00:43:27.000
to talk to the media, but some of the most famous scientists are people who did it well, right? Like Jacques Cousteau and Carl Sagan.

00:43:27.000 --> 00:43:31.000
They weren't particularly loved by their colleagues at the time for doing that.

00:43:31.000 --> 00:43:42.000
But what they did was help expand the public understanding of science in a democracy that helps people make more informed choices when they vote. It helps people make more informed choices when they buy things at the store.

00:43:42.000 --> 00:43:46.000
And it helps inspire kids to want to go into those fields.

00:43:46.000 --> 00:43:50.000
I wrote an obit for Jacques Cousteau when he died in 1996, or whenever it was.

00:43:50.000 --> 00:43:57.000
And most of. The top marine scientists that I talked to said, I got into it because I watched his TV show.

00:43:57.000 --> 00:44:05.000
He wasn't writing peer-reviewed papers to sit in a dusty shelves anywhere. He was inspiring people, and there's a lot of people in different fields who do that well.

00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:13.000
And I think that you need to find those reporters who you work well with, who you trust, who are interested in this stuff.

00:44:13.000 --> 00:44:18.000
And, you know, 3 quarters of the conversations that I have with scientists aren't for attribution.

00:44:18.000 --> 00:44:21.000
They're… they're just… I'll text people and say, hey, what are you working on?

00:44:21.000 --> 00:44:24.000
Do you have any good, interesting papers coming out?

00:44:24.000 --> 00:44:29.000
Right? Let me know a week ahead of time, because I might already have another story I got to work on, but I'd love to.

00:44:29.000 --> 00:44:38.000
do some nice graphics with this, and do it properly, and I'll honor any embargo you want. But if it's dropped on me at a press release at 4 o'clock when my deadline's 5, I can't even write about it.

00:44:38.000 --> 00:44:39.000
So, like, work… Work with that bench of reporters that are really interested, the beat people.

00:44:39.000 --> 00:44:45.000
I wanna expand on that, Paul.

00:44:45.000 --> 00:44:46.000
That's what I recommend.

00:44:46.000 --> 00:44:52.000
Definitely. And I want to also expand on something that Jack posted in the chat about, um.

00:44:52.000 --> 00:45:03.000
Yeah, writing stories about earthquakes in peacetime. And… and so I'm curious what earthquake information best interests the public?

00:45:03.000 --> 00:45:08.000
What should we be coming to reporters with?

00:45:08.000 --> 00:45:09.000
You know, I mean…

00:45:09.000 --> 00:45:10.000
New novel, and local.

00:45:10.000 --> 00:45:11.000
Yeah, yeah, that's it.

00:45:11.000 --> 00:45:12.000
I love Jack's perspective first.

00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:20.000
Yeah, Ross… Ross came to me with… Ross came to me with an idea of talking about the upside of earthquakes, and it turned into a very nice 5-minute and eternity in broadcast.

00:45:20.000 --> 00:45:27.000
five-minute piece about the fact that we live in this beautiful Bay Area is because of the San Andreas and Hayward and Calaveras Faults.

00:45:27.000 --> 00:45:33.000
And the Pillar Citas Vault, uh, out by Pacifica, and it was a very nice piece, but it was Ross's idea.

00:45:33.000 --> 00:45:39.000
Um, and if there's something that can continue to capture the public's attention eternally, the Hayward Fault,

00:45:39.000 --> 00:45:45.000
and the San Andreas Fault, which to this day, Ross was talking about the reptilian part of us.

00:45:45.000 --> 00:45:48.000
brings a shudder to me, because when I grow up in Hollister,

00:45:48.000 --> 00:45:54.000
the name, San Andreas Fault, just brought fear and loathing into you, is something that we…

00:45:54.000 --> 00:46:01.000
Frankly, sorry again, it's the fear factor, but can tap into if there's something interesting about your work.

00:46:01.000 --> 00:46:07.000
that has relevance to earthquake safety in the Bay Area, and I know we're focusing on earthquakes, but here we are.

00:46:07.000 --> 00:46:15.000
Um… I just don't see… I don't get any pitches that are, why don't we just do this story? It would make people aware of the Hayward Fold,

00:46:15.000 --> 00:46:22.000
We just saw something a little bit new, and it would remind people that it's the most lived-upon fault in the world, or at least one of them.

00:46:22.000 --> 00:46:28.000
I never get pitches like that. You know, I'm having to noodle usually with Ross about

00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:31.000
new, interesting stuff.

00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:37.000
That's really changed. That was different. Of course, it was different because it was in the shadow of the Loma Prieta quake.

00:46:37.000 --> 00:46:38.000
Mm-hmm.

00:46:38.000 --> 00:46:39.000
In terms of local pitches,

00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:43.000
that have something to do with any of the big faults in the Bay Area.

00:46:43.000 --> 00:46:48.000
I can tell you, I get maybe one a year. Maybe one, and I love the topic.

00:46:48.000 --> 00:46:55.000
So, that's what scientists could do to help. You know, Belobosian is doing work on tree rings in, uh…

00:46:55.000 --> 00:47:01.000
On the North Coast. It's fascinating. I'd like to do a story on it.

00:47:01.000 --> 00:47:04.000
Yeah, there's stuff like that, but I don't get press releases about that. So…

00:47:04.000 --> 00:47:07.000
That would help.

00:47:07.000 --> 00:47:12.000
Jack, what has been of interest to the Chronicle leadership?

00:47:12.000 --> 00:47:19.000
It seems like the stories I feel like that did

00:47:19.000 --> 00:47:20.000
Yeah.

00:47:20.000 --> 00:47:21.000
Like, I wrote about the Concord Fault, um, I think that came up earlier, and I think I just happened to be… my colleague saw the study, and I…

00:47:21.000 --> 00:47:26.000
that… I'm not sure what it was, probably just, like, finding something new about

00:47:26.000 --> 00:47:31.000
a fault that's in, you know, people… literally in people's backyards. I think it's something that really applies to people. I think that's the kind of stuff that

00:47:31.000 --> 00:47:32.000
Yeah.

00:47:32.000 --> 00:47:37.000
sort of piques people's attention, you know, even if there was an earthquake happening there, you know, right when the study came out.

00:47:37.000 --> 00:47:40.000
I think it's still got, like, a pretty good amount of attention.

00:47:40.000 --> 00:47:43.000
Um, so I think that was a really great example of

00:47:43.000 --> 00:47:48.000
I think people will be able to relate to something, um, and be able to understand how it could impact them.

00:47:48.000 --> 00:47:50.000
Um,

00:47:50.000 --> 00:47:56.000
of course, I think with this new San Ramon Swarm, I think that's also been something that's come up quite a bit.

00:47:56.000 --> 00:48:05.000
I live near San Ramon, um, so I can kind of relate to, um, people maybe freaking out, because it's actually pretty disturbing, um, just having your house shaking every couple minutes.

00:48:05.000 --> 00:48:09.000
Um, but I think this has come up in sort of earlier conversations, too, like,

00:48:09.000 --> 00:48:11.000
It is a nice opportunity to, like,

00:48:11.000 --> 00:48:20.000
bring up the fact that, like, there are these concerns about earthquakes that could be even more damaging, and how to prepare, so just taking advantage of people's attention on the topic of earthquakes.

00:48:20.000 --> 00:48:24.000
Um, to sort of bring up some of these things that maybe we don't talk about that often, but…

00:48:24.000 --> 00:48:25.000
people can really benefit from.

00:48:25.000 --> 00:48:31.000
Jack, dude, I'm sorry to interrupt, did you get a press release on that, or is that because you were digging through science journals?

00:48:31.000 --> 00:48:38.000
Um, I think there was… I wish I could say it was me. I think my colleague actually saw something on Blue Sky, um, and then he, um,

00:48:38.000 --> 00:48:39.000
shared it with me.

00:48:39.000 --> 00:48:41.000
Well, you did an… you did a great job. That was a great article.

00:48:41.000 --> 00:48:42.000
Yeah.

00:48:42.000 --> 00:48:45.000
Oh, thank you. Oh, thank you so much. Um, it was… really, it was just kind of…

00:48:45.000 --> 00:48:51.000
Oftentimes, just someone spotting something and then bringing it to me, and then being like, oh, we can look into it from based on that, so…

00:48:51.000 --> 00:48:52.000
Um, yeah, that was…

00:48:52.000 --> 00:49:02.000
To which I would say, where's the press release on that? There was nothing on it. As far as I know, there was nothing on that. And that was important work, and a significant discovery.

00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:06.000
It's like, hello, you've got a fault coming through your house, but we never heard anything from…

00:49:06.000 --> 00:49:17.000
from USGS, and I mean, Austin Elliott had left the country, who was, I think, one of the authors, and Austin is… was terrific. I hated to see him go, but if it hadn't been for Jack's article,

00:49:17.000 --> 00:49:19.000
As per usual in broadcasting,

00:49:19.000 --> 00:49:20.000
We wouldn't have known about it.

00:49:20.000 --> 00:49:21.000
Hmm…

00:49:21.000 --> 00:49:28.000
Yeah, and I would say, well, we did work directly with Jack on

00:49:28.000 --> 00:49:29.000
Yeah, very…

00:49:29.000 --> 00:49:30.000
producing that one, so that was… that would be more of a media pitch directly than a…

00:49:30.000 --> 00:49:31.000
full press release on it.

00:49:31.000 --> 00:49:34.000
Oh. Yeah, that was a nice job.

00:49:34.000 --> 00:49:35.000
Yeah.

00:49:35.000 --> 00:49:36.000
But any…

00:49:36.000 --> 00:49:37.000
and to that point, we don't need full press releases, right? A lot of times, it's just an email.

00:49:37.000 --> 00:49:41.000
Monica, I… or…

00:49:41.000 --> 00:49:42.000
Hey, we've got a paper coming out in a week.

00:49:42.000 --> 00:49:43.000
Yeah.

00:49:43.000 --> 00:49:48.000
Here's an… do you want an embargoed copy? Literally, I probably get, I'm not joking.

00:49:48.000 --> 00:49:52.000
10 of those a day, um, but I never get them on.

00:49:52.000 --> 00:49:55.000
earthquakes. Um, and, you know, universities can do them.

00:49:55.000 --> 00:49:56.000
Yes.

00:49:56.000 --> 00:50:02.000
Also, you mentioned other topics. I mean, we live along the coast. Tsunamis are pretty interesting, too.

00:50:02.000 --> 00:50:10.000
Maybe not volcanoes so much in the Bay Area, but, um… Tsunamis are pretty cool, and a lot of the modeling we've.

00:50:10.000 --> 00:50:17.000
scene, and, um. you know, the graphics are cool. I think Sarah asked a question in the chat about.

00:50:17.000 --> 00:50:21.000
Should we do our own graphics, or give you guys information for graphics? That's a great question.

00:50:21.000 --> 00:50:26.000
Again, hand-holding is really good. You know, the media is in a diminished capacity.

00:50:26.000 --> 00:50:32.000
Newspapers used to make 30% profit, um. I used to get paid to go to the Amazon to do stories, and.

00:50:32.000 --> 00:50:37.000
All over the place. And, uh, you know, what happened about 20 years ago was that.

00:50:37.000 --> 00:50:55.000
big companies like, um. eBay and Facebook and Google, uh, even Craigslist began taking a lot of the ad revenue from newspapers, so… We have fewer people covering science and the environment than we used to have.

00:50:55.000 --> 00:50:56.000
Yeah, yeah.

00:50:56.000 --> 00:50:59.000
I've been in the Mercury News for many years had a science section every week that was 12 pages. We had 8 people writing for it.

00:50:59.000 --> 00:51:05.000
That's… that's gone, right? And so… We used to have 4 environmental reporters and 3 or 4 science reporters. Now there's me.

00:51:05.000 --> 00:51:06.000
Glenn did it.

00:51:06.000 --> 00:51:10.000
We still put it out. I mean, we're the oldest newspaper in California. We've been here since 1851.

00:51:10.000 --> 00:51:11.000
Wow.

00:51:11.000 --> 00:51:15.000
Um, and we're named after geology, we're named after the mercury mines at Almad and Quicksilver.

00:51:15.000 --> 00:51:17.000
Holy damn, Jesus.

00:51:17.000 --> 00:51:26.000
But, but… There just aren't as many of us, so a little more… a little more hand-holding, providing a finished graphic, like, of the earthquake swarm, for example.

00:51:26.000 --> 00:51:36.000
How does it really work exactly? just for the average man on the street, that kind of stuff is just super, super helpful. I wish we had more capacity, we don't.

00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:44.000
Um, there's also been a lot of consolidation in media, so… companies buy other companies as they, um.

00:51:44.000 --> 00:51:51.000
you know, as the industry makes less profit. So, the bad news is there aren't as many voices. The good news is, if you're on the.

00:51:51.000 --> 00:51:55.000
the outreach side, or the PR side, you don't have to pitch to as many people.

00:51:55.000 --> 00:51:59.000
I mean, a story that I write about the San Ramon, uh, earthquake swarm.

00:51:59.000 --> 00:52:03.000
not only runs in papers in San Jose, but we also own.

00:52:03.000 --> 00:52:10.000
The Marin Independent Journal, the San Diego Union Tribune, the Orange County Register, the LA Daily News, the Riverside Press Enterprise, the Denver Post.

00:52:10.000 --> 00:52:13.000
the Chicago Tribune. They go to all those places.

00:52:13.000 --> 00:52:21.000
As well, that story. So… Connect with the people who cover this stuff regularly, who you trust. Make relationships, talk to them.

00:52:21.000 --> 00:52:26.000
on background, and we really want to know, like Brian's saying, we just want to know.

00:52:26.000 --> 00:52:31.000
what you're working on, like, just… when's the next big conference? When's the next big paper?

00:52:31.000 --> 00:52:40.000
What are you doing that you think is cool? What do you tell friends about at cocktail parties? Because whatever you tell your friends about, our readers are interested, and our viewers are interested in that stuff, too.

00:52:40.000 --> 00:52:48.000
We just need to hear. more pitches, even if they're kind of, like, on background, not completely formal, like, hey.

00:52:48.000 --> 00:52:52.000
Check out this journal article in a week, it's really cool. I can't say anything officially, but it's pretty neat.

00:52:52.000 --> 00:52:57.000
Yeah, and Andy Michael just texted saying, um, how do earthquake swarms work? I wish we knew.

00:52:57.000 --> 00:53:01.000
That's a story, too. If it's a mystery to you guys, that's a good story.

00:53:01.000 --> 00:53:11.000
Like, what's going on here? I thought we had, uh, faults and everything figured out. So even not knowing is sometimes a good story, because you learn other stuff in connection with it.

00:53:11.000 --> 00:53:19.000
So I want to come back to the topic of swarms and the San Ramon specifically in a bit. I do want to ask Monica her perspective on how.

00:53:19.000 --> 00:53:26.000
earthquake information, science discoveries about earthquakes, um, interest the groups that she's.

00:53:26.000 --> 00:53:27.000
communicating out to.

00:53:27.000 --> 00:53:36.000
Yeah. I think there's two distinct aspects to that question. One, again, is kind of that pre-event, when you're looking at

00:53:36.000 --> 00:53:45.000
the risk assessment, the threat assessment, and trying to assess that, of where are the faults, what type ofaults are they, how…

00:53:45.000 --> 00:53:59.000
What's the likelihood of, you know, significant shaking? What's the liquefaction risk? Because we also can't forget about these other ground movement aspects that might be tied into an earthquake.

00:53:59.000 --> 00:54:08.000
In that sense. And so those are all things that the resilience professionals are really looking for in terms of being able to do their own threat assessments.

00:54:08.000 --> 00:54:17.000
And so, maps become key, and that's something that really was played out well with the Haywired scenario that USGS did.

00:54:17.000 --> 00:54:29.000
is because it provided a lot of that foundational knowledge of now being able to look at, okay, yes, this is one plausible scenario, the epicenter might be somewhere else, and shaking changes.

00:54:29.000 --> 00:54:43.000
But it gave that sense of understanding of, here's what this earthquake might mean in regards to our refineries, in regards to the airports, in regards to the ports, so supply chain impacts,

00:54:43.000 --> 00:54:46.000
And starting to think through that bigger picture.

00:54:46.000 --> 00:54:49.000
Shifting over to, kind of, post-event,

00:54:49.000 --> 00:54:55.000
In that sense, it also is really about where was the shaking, so the shake maps.

00:54:55.000 --> 00:55:02.000
become really key, because that becomes a factor in damage assessment of how might it have affected infrastructure,

00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:09.000
employee commutes, looking at different aspects that they then need to potentially do operational contingency planning for.

00:55:09.000 --> 00:55:13.000
And along with that is the aftershock forecast.

00:55:13.000 --> 00:55:17.000
On that, if there's high probability of stronger aftershocks,

00:55:17.000 --> 00:55:25.000
In some areas, they might decide, you know, we're not gonna be pulling people in, or we're gonna hold off for a little bit on restoration aspect.

00:55:25.000 --> 00:55:27.000
And just do some key priority work.

00:55:27.000 --> 00:55:33.000
on that, because if it's just gonna fall down, again, high likelihood the next day,

00:55:33.000 --> 00:55:37.000
you need to prioritize where you're putting limited resources and efforts.

00:55:37.000 --> 00:55:41.000
And so those Aftershock forecasts start becoming decision-making.

00:55:41.000 --> 00:55:44.000
influencers on that

00:55:44.000 --> 00:55:47.000
Where's the damage in looking at this broader picture?

00:55:47.000 --> 00:55:55.000
So there's these two different aspects of before and after, and it's really looking at it through that operational continuity lens,

00:55:55.000 --> 00:56:00.000
And that is not just internal to an organization, but how does it impact the broader infrastructure

00:56:00.000 --> 00:56:04.000
in the region and the flow of goods and supply chains, and…

00:56:04.000 --> 00:56:10.000
Including in that, also, power generation, water flow, wastewater, and those aspects.

00:56:10.000 --> 00:56:15.000
So that's a quick snapshot, recognizing we're kind of limited on time.

00:56:15.000 --> 00:56:16.000
in terms of the audience I work with.

00:56:16.000 --> 00:56:24.000
Yeah, I mean, it sounds like… It sounds like scientific discoveries on all those topics would be of interest to your audiences.

00:56:24.000 --> 00:56:29.000
So it's not just the media that we should be pitching our.

00:56:29.000 --> 00:56:38.000
Our new papers and novel findings, too, but also, uh… other public information officials who are communicating to.

00:56:38.000 --> 00:56:39.000
Mm-hmm.

00:56:39.000 --> 00:56:42.000
audiences of interest. Good.

00:56:42.000 --> 00:56:49.000
and other channels of communicating, uh, you know, a lot of people now we know are getting their news maybe.

00:56:49.000 --> 00:57:00.000
only from TikTok. and other channels where it's, you know, not even from… maybe it's from scientists who are putting out good information there, or maybe it's just.

00:57:00.000 --> 00:57:05.000
what people are hearing and putting out. And I'm wondering with our panel, how is that.

00:57:05.000 --> 00:57:11.000
the advent of that, uh, change, if it has, how you're doing your reporting and.

00:57:11.000 --> 00:57:18.000
And, or does… is your station, your… channels using those channels, too, and putting your stories out.

00:57:18.000 --> 00:57:22.000
Since we were just on the theme of, kind of, that…

00:57:22.000 --> 00:57:26.000
operational resilience… I'm gonna jump in quickly here first.

00:57:26.000 --> 00:57:31.000
I think one of the key things, if that's changed there is senior leaders

00:57:31.000 --> 00:57:36.000
at the companies and organizations often first hear about things from those social media,

00:57:36.000 --> 00:57:39.000
Posts, and then that feeds down to…

00:57:39.000 --> 00:57:47.000
kind of their operational business continuity, emergency managers, who then get the question of, you know, what are we doing to solve this, or…

00:57:47.000 --> 00:58:00.000
And so it feeds some of that and can skew priorities based on what social media talking about versus what's actually an operational priority.

00:58:00.000 --> 00:58:03.000
So, I'll toss it out to the rest of the group now.

00:58:03.000 --> 00:58:04.000
Yeah.

00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:06.000
Yeah, how about in other forms of media?

00:58:06.000 --> 00:58:11.000
Like, I would say it's kind of more of the same of what we've always dealt with, it's just different audience, like, there's…

00:58:11.000 --> 00:58:18.000
how you want to share information on TikTok is going to be different than how you want to share it with a reporter, which is different than how you want to share it with your family, like…

00:58:18.000 --> 00:58:22.000
You're gonna want to curtail how you speak about what you're talking about.

00:58:22.000 --> 00:58:28.000
for that. And it's always been that way. So whether you're talking to a grade school, giving a presentation, or if you're

00:58:28.000 --> 00:58:30.000
talking to a reporter, you're going to talk to that

00:58:30.000 --> 00:58:35.000
outlet differently. There's just now new and different outlets that…

00:58:35.000 --> 00:58:40.000
people can explore.

00:58:40.000 --> 00:58:45.000
But making sure that you can curtail it specifically to what you want to work with is…

00:58:45.000 --> 00:58:49.000
the key, and that's not always the case. If you don't want to talk.

00:58:49.000 --> 00:58:53.000
at a certain level with all those different outlets and outlets, or different outlets and…

00:58:53.000 --> 00:58:58.000
Uh, people.

00:58:58.000 --> 00:59:05.000
Any other parting thoughts on… earthquake information for social media and TikTok.

00:59:05.000 --> 00:59:06.000
Uh, it's super important in real time, very quickly, after events.

00:59:06.000 --> 00:59:10.000
So…

00:59:10.000 --> 00:59:18.000
important, uh, getting people prepared. I wouldn't respond to people who respond to you on social media.

00:59:18.000 --> 00:59:36.000
Right? There's… a lot of trolls out there, foreign intelligence agents, just all sorts of nonsense, um, so… Um, there's no filter, obviously, on who's in that conversation, so, um… I think it's useful to post the information and then just kind of step back.

00:59:36.000 --> 00:59:40.000
I mean, if I could just ask Ross something, Ross teaches a class in…

00:59:40.000 --> 00:59:44.000
at Stanford about various aspects of communicating science.

00:59:44.000 --> 00:59:50.000
is… and Ross, one of the things, I think, that you've told your students is, write your own press releases.

00:59:50.000 --> 00:59:54.000
Is that at all possible at USGS?

00:59:54.000 --> 00:59:55.000
Well, Sobe could answer.

00:59:55.000 --> 01:00:00.000
Yeah, I could answer that. I personally would frown upon it, because I've…

01:00:00.000 --> 01:00:05.000
over the years, coming from a researcher into communications and into public affairs,

01:00:05.000 --> 01:00:07.000
I've had to transition how…

01:00:07.000 --> 01:00:12.000
I communicate, and what I've prioritize, and how you do it, and…

01:00:12.000 --> 01:00:18.000
When I work with a subject matter expert on a press release, I want to write it because they are…

01:00:18.000 --> 01:00:20.000
a structured type of…

01:00:20.000 --> 01:00:24.000
document. Like, the way they're designed, the way they are written,

01:00:24.000 --> 01:00:26.000
has a formula to it that

01:00:26.000 --> 01:00:32.000
It's easy to learn. Once you learn it, but it's a case where a lot of scientists will approach it as a technical report.

01:00:32.000 --> 01:00:41.000
And you'll get a 6-page document that synthesizes all the research. It's like, no, you want to put the hook, you want to put the quote, you want to put the lead, you want to do these things that are designed.

01:00:41.000 --> 01:00:48.000
And then it becomes that scope creep of, like, but you're not telling them all the… like, well, you don't tell them, so they ask you. Like, it's supposed to peak.

01:00:48.000 --> 01:00:52.000
the reporter could question things. You're not supposed to provide all the information and then walk away, so, like…

01:00:52.000 --> 01:00:57.000
It should be an easy fix when you talk to it, to say, oh yeah, scientists can write it, but it always

01:00:57.000 --> 01:01:00.000
seems, in my experience, to be

01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:03.000
It's a much more…

01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:05.000
onerous.

01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:08.000
written thing than you need. I'd rather take it, I can write it in, you know,

01:01:08.000 --> 01:01:13.000
8 minutes versus the 3 weeks that you want to write it and back and forth, and…

01:01:13.000 --> 01:01:15.000
like, fighting over…

01:01:15.000 --> 01:01:16.000
It's… it's a skill.

01:01:16.000 --> 01:01:17.000
But… yeah.

01:01:17.000 --> 01:01:19.000
Yeah, yeah, got it.

01:01:19.000 --> 01:01:20.000
The.

01:01:20.000 --> 01:01:26.000
Just a little side story that years ago, the USGS did a bathymetric survey of Lake Tahoe, and they found these giant blocks

01:01:26.000 --> 01:01:31.000
Which weren't the bedrock sticking up. They were blocks that had come from the Sierra and peaks.

01:01:31.000 --> 01:01:38.000
During earthquakes on the faults that had flown down into the middle and would produce an incredible tsunami in the lake.

01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:41.000
And, uh, the wonderful press…

01:01:41.000 --> 01:01:44.000
person for the survey at the time, her first name was Pat.

01:01:44.000 --> 01:01:52.000
She wrote a press release, and the title was, Tahoe Bears Its Bottom for USGS.

01:01:52.000 --> 01:01:53.000
I won, and that's all.

01:01:53.000 --> 01:01:56.000
Now, that was brilliant. That's just what Sobey's talking about. Let's just make it… you gotta read this thing.

01:01:56.000 --> 01:01:57.000
Yeah.

01:01:57.000 --> 01:02:03.000
I wanted farting Lakes, because they had methane releases, and I couldn't get it approved, but it's like, that's the whimsy that you'll see and hear.

01:02:03.000 --> 01:02:06.000
Um, the other point I was gonna say with the press releases is the quotes.

01:02:06.000 --> 01:02:10.000
One of the biggest things I have to fight against is making quotes.

01:02:10.000 --> 01:02:18.000
I'd say just charismatic and interesting, where it's like, you want emotion, you want to convey personality with it, and what you always get is methods

01:02:18.000 --> 01:02:22.000
And shout-outs to partners, and it becomes a very, like,

01:02:22.000 --> 01:02:33.000
Of reporters are not going to take that and put it into their story, because they don't care about you talking about the ecological benefits of something, something, something. They want to hear that, oh my god, this was crazy, we weren't expecting

01:02:33.000 --> 01:02:35.000
dot dot dot. And they have…

01:02:35.000 --> 01:02:38.000
kind of wonder and…

01:02:38.000 --> 01:02:41.000
personality put into the quote versus

01:02:41.000 --> 01:02:43.000
you know, here's what we did.

01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:48.000
Like, we explained that already. We don't need you to explain it in your quote.

01:02:48.000 --> 01:02:56.000
Steve, you get it 100%. I mean, quotes are not for repeating facts, right? That's… That's what the paraphrasing's for.

01:02:56.000 --> 01:03:05.000
Quotes are for emotion and conversationality and humanity. the dirty little secret on what you and Ross are talking about is that.

01:03:05.000 --> 01:03:11.000
We are so completely overwhelmed by the volume of information we get as journalists.

01:03:11.000 --> 01:03:17.000
We have… we literally spend seconds reading these. I get 200 emails every day.

01:03:17.000 --> 01:03:25.000
And nearly all of them are pitches. Right? And so, if you don't hook me in the first paragraph, I'm gone. I literally have 10 seconds or so to read your press release.

01:03:25.000 --> 01:03:30.000
I'm not going down to the eighth paragraph. If it's boring, if it's dense, if it's thick, if I don't get it.

01:03:30.000 --> 01:03:43.000
If I don't understand why my grandmother cares. I'm on to the other 20 that are coming from other agencies, so… That's not to say it needs to be dumbed down, that's just to go back to the 15-second phone battery rule.

01:03:43.000 --> 01:03:45.000
Who, what, when, where, why, right at the top.

01:03:45.000 --> 01:03:49.000
what's the relevance? Why now? What does my grandmother care?

01:03:49.000 --> 01:03:53.000
Um, you know, give me some wonder, give me a little bit of wow factor.

01:03:53.000 --> 01:03:55.000
Find a reason that your next-door neighbor would want to read this.

01:03:55.000 --> 01:03:57.000
Yeah, my…

01:03:57.000 --> 01:03:58.000
That's the…

01:03:58.000 --> 01:04:03.000
big one with that is I try to frame it first as why the audience should care, versus why I think

01:04:03.000 --> 01:04:04.000
Exactly.

01:04:04.000 --> 01:04:10.000
what I'm trying to tell… what I want them to know. That's always the debate of, like, which do you prioritize, and you always try prioritizing why your audience should care, obviously, but…

01:04:10.000 --> 01:04:13.000
Sometimes it's really hard, because you have a thing that you want them to…

01:04:13.000 --> 01:04:18.000
To know, so I want to tell them, I'm like, well, save that for the end. That's when the reporter asks, is there anything else I don't know?

01:04:18.000 --> 01:04:21.000
Then you could tell them that if you hadn't had a chance to…

01:04:21.000 --> 01:04:23.000
put it in the initial, but the first part is you want to…

01:04:23.000 --> 01:04:26.000
the audience to care. And sometimes that's not the same.

01:04:26.000 --> 01:04:32.000
It's a great… it's a… it's a great journalism school exercise. You can write a lead of a story that says.

01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:41.000
The San Francisco City Council, or the LA City Council on Thursday raised water rates 3.2% effective January 1st.

01:04:41.000 --> 01:04:50.000
That's pretty boring, it's pretty dense, but it's accurate. Or you could write, the average water bill of Los Angeles residents will go up $7.50 starting next month.

01:04:50.000 --> 01:04:53.000
Right? It's the same thing, but who's gonna read which one?

01:04:53.000 --> 01:05:06.000
Um, so, I think you get it, and the problem with scientists a lot of times is they're not trained in that. They don't… They're talking to other scientists, not to the readers, not to the masses. The other one issue that I have.

01:05:06.000 --> 01:05:12.000
with, I'm sure the other journalists do, with press conferences, too, is half of the time at press conferences.

01:05:12.000 --> 01:05:15.000
It's, um, agencies congratulating each other for partnering with other agencies.

01:05:15.000 --> 01:05:18.000
Hmm.

01:05:18.000 --> 01:05:19.000
Oh, yeah.

01:05:19.000 --> 01:05:20.000
Okay.

01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:28.000
And I always tell people, look. Taxpayers expect public agencies to work together. I know it doesn't always happen, but that's not news. That's like the bare minimum, man.

01:05:28.000 --> 01:05:32.000
It's like, we get it, but like, tell us what they did, not the fact that they returned each other's calls.

01:05:32.000 --> 01:05:36.000
Well, then that reminds me of my why I always get in trouble when I give media training.

01:05:36.000 --> 01:05:42.000
Because the one thing you're supposed to do in public affairs and public relations is answer the question you want to answer, not the one that you're asked.

01:05:42.000 --> 01:05:45.000
And nobody likes that.

01:05:45.000 --> 01:05:52.000
I've never seen a debate where there's two politicians getting asked a question, and they don't answer it, and it's like, that's a good one! Good job there, you did…

01:05:52.000 --> 01:05:54.000
Like, but you're supposed to do that, and it's one of those…

01:05:54.000 --> 01:05:58.000
hard parts of the… the hardest part of, like, in my role of, like,

01:05:58.000 --> 01:06:03.000
I know what I want to say, but I also know that it's my job not to say it, and it's my job to make sure that my scientists don't

01:06:03.000 --> 01:06:09.000
put their foot in their mouth, or do something that could get them in trouble and make sure that they stay on message and…

01:06:09.000 --> 01:06:13.000
do that, so it's a little dance that we all are aware of.

01:06:13.000 --> 01:06:14.000
Miss Good, you do this, I'm sure. You give them 3 bullet points, right, ahead of time.

01:06:14.000 --> 01:06:24.000
Sorry, sorry, Paul. I, I don't… I don't wanna… I don't wanna cut the conversation short. We've… Sue's had her hand up for a while, Sue, please go ahead.

01:06:24.000 --> 01:06:34.000
Oh, yeah, I was just itching to jump in as a… Am I on? As a USGS scientist who loves to write, I've written books, I've written articles, I've written op-eds.

01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:41.000
In today's USGS, I don't see the channels. You know, not every scientist.

01:06:41.000 --> 01:06:45.000
likes to write and can write, like Sobe said, but if you can.

01:06:45.000 --> 01:06:57.000
you know, maybe Sobey can speak to this. But the press releases that go out by the… by the USGS, or few and far between, and very carefully reviewed at high levels.

01:06:57.000 --> 01:07:00.000
So even if you have scientists who want to communicate.

01:07:00.000 --> 01:07:04.000
I've just been stymied.

01:07:04.000 --> 01:07:06.000
And part of that is…

01:07:06.000 --> 01:07:13.000
This is intended to be the culture change, where it's like, people aren't reading press releases now, they're getting their information from online.

01:07:13.000 --> 01:07:18.000
So, how do you get things out on social media? And then it leads into another conversation of access and getting things out.

01:07:18.000 --> 01:07:21.000
Successfully on social media, but…

01:07:21.000 --> 01:07:25.000
I guess I could pose that to the other folks, like, our press releases still a thing, or is…

01:07:25.000 --> 01:07:27.000
media pitches and social media,

01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:34.000
promoting stuff on our own outlets, the best way to hook a story.

01:07:34.000 --> 01:07:39.000
Probably a combination, but at least if the surveys' hands are somewhat tied on this.

01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:45.000
We should be appealing to the university community and other agencies where people can

01:07:45.000 --> 01:07:54.000
If they have a paper that they're excited about, write a press release, or put it on their social media, because inevitably, if we're talking about earthquakes, USGS will be in the story.

01:07:54.000 --> 01:08:01.000
So, even if you're at, you know, Colorado, you know, a different university, USGS is going to get credit.

01:08:01.000 --> 01:08:06.000
for what it's doing. So, in a sense, the community can come together and help make up

01:08:06.000 --> 01:08:09.000
what the survey can't now do.

01:08:09.000 --> 01:08:19.000
Yeah, when we put something on CBS, yes, it's just television, which is not what it used to be. Neither is, you know, newspaper or radio, but…

01:08:19.000 --> 01:08:27.000
We've all got social media channels, I've all got YouTube, we've all got TikTok, we've all got… so we help spread the message of what USGS is doing.

01:08:27.000 --> 01:08:29.000
So, while…

01:08:29.000 --> 01:08:40.000
We ain't what we used to be. We still have a lot of reach, and it is… you know what? If nothing else, we produce a free video for USGS spotlighting your scientists, and you can do with it what you like.

01:08:40.000 --> 01:08:46.000
Uh, with your own media channels.

01:08:46.000 --> 01:08:54.000
all right, I want to get us back to, um… the earthquakes that have come up the most in this session, I think, which was the recent San Ramon swarm.

01:08:54.000 --> 01:08:55.000
Yeah.

01:08:55.000 --> 01:09:04.000
Um, so what… what has this form taught us about the tension between providing earthquake information, preparedness information.

01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:11.000
and potentially over-communicating to the public. Especially when there's uncertainty about what these earthquakes can do.

01:09:11.000 --> 01:09:14.000
And I think we might even have… um, some props that can help elucidate.

01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:16.000
I've always got prompts. Okay, so this is…

01:09:16.000 --> 01:09:19.000
Here. Baby.

01:09:19.000 --> 01:09:23.000
Obviously, this is the quake of the moment that we're all struggling with, and…

01:09:23.000 --> 01:09:25.000
a couple of weeks ago,

01:09:25.000 --> 01:09:31.000
Brian sent me 4 questions. I want to read them because these are the questions that come from a good reporter

01:09:31.000 --> 01:09:34.000
Who wants answers that are hard to provide. So we wrote,

01:09:34.000 --> 01:09:44.000
Does the new activity that came awake a couple weeks ago, does the new activity have a greater potential to lead to a bigger quake?

01:09:44.000 --> 01:09:48.000
I think on those of us on this Zoom would say yes.

01:09:48.000 --> 01:09:52.000
The probability rises if the quake rate rises, or if we have…

01:09:52.000 --> 01:09:55.000
A larger magnitude. Okay.

01:09:55.000 --> 01:10:01.000
Uh, is the duration of the swarm now the greatest we've seen since 1970? Brian asked.

01:10:01.000 --> 01:10:06.000
It is by a few weeks. Obviously, duration is just one factor.

01:10:06.000 --> 01:10:08.000
The 1990 Danville Swarm

01:10:08.000 --> 01:10:13.000
was capped by a magnitude 4.4, our highest so far is 4.2.

01:10:13.000 --> 01:10:19.000
So, it's one of the biggest ones we've seen out of the 10 or so since 1970.

01:10:19.000 --> 01:10:27.000
Okay, Brian asks, is the mechanism any better understood? Well, in this meeting, this NorCal meeting, we've seen talks by

01:10:27.000 --> 01:10:29.000
David Shelley and Takara,

01:10:29.000 --> 01:10:37.000
That, uh, it's not on a single fault, it's on a mesh of faults. These… this mesh somehow connects the calaveras

01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:40.000
Due to the thrust faults, the Sherbourne thrust, or the…

01:10:40.000 --> 01:10:42.000
Mount Diablo Thrust.

01:10:42.000 --> 01:10:49.000
it's possibly lubricated by faults, but we have no direct evidence for that. That's pretty indirect.

01:10:49.000 --> 01:10:53.000
And then he asks, do the… do the tides have anything to do with it?

01:10:53.000 --> 01:10:59.000
And that was examined in 2015. As far as I know, it hasn't been examined for these events.

01:10:59.000 --> 01:11:02.000
And then finally, he says, is there anything new or novel?

01:11:02.000 --> 01:11:05.000
Okay, so these are… these are the kind of the best…

01:11:05.000 --> 01:11:10.000
informed reporter questions, we have to struggle to answer them.

01:11:10.000 --> 01:11:12.000
But that's our job, because…

01:11:12.000 --> 01:11:19.000
This is the moment where we need to say to someone who's living in San Ramon, or Dublin, or Danville, do you need to do anything differently now?

01:11:19.000 --> 01:11:27.000
And obviously, we don't know, we have no crystal ball, but we have enough tools. Andy was talking about, Andy Michael about,

01:11:27.000 --> 01:11:30.000
Aftershock forecasts…

01:11:30.000 --> 01:11:35.000
We can say something, and this is the moment to say something if we can…

01:11:35.000 --> 01:11:43.000
You know, do this in a manner which is not inflammatory, but informative.

01:11:43.000 --> 01:11:46.000
Okay, prop. Here is…

01:11:46.000 --> 01:11:49.000
This is the Happy Calaveras Vault.

01:11:49.000 --> 01:11:54.000
And it's just moving along in a right lateral sense, no problem.

01:11:54.000 --> 01:11:58.000
But where this occurred, there's a… there's a bit of a bend in the fault.

01:11:58.000 --> 01:12:01.000
Okay, and so what happens…

01:12:01.000 --> 01:12:10.000
is that as it moves down, you can see how there's another fault that gets activated, an off fault, and it tends to open up a little bit.

01:12:10.000 --> 01:12:17.000
And that opening up might allow fluids to squirt in there, and might create opportunities for secondary thoughts.

01:12:17.000 --> 01:12:23.000
Okay, that's my high-tech science. I know that there are people on this call who could do a lot better.

01:12:23.000 --> 01:12:32.000
But, you know, that's kind of the level of my understanding, anyway.

01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:38.000
You know, I gotta say, there's nobody better at it. It's great. Anybody… my aunt could understand it.

01:12:38.000 --> 01:12:46.000
So that's the general audience criteria. You're right, it doesn't… when you dig down into the… I mean, what do I know? Well, if you dig down into the real details of this,

01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:56.000
It's probably not a completely 100% accurate reflection, but it gives people an idea of the challenge you're up against, and also something of this fluid explanation, where people go,

01:12:56.000 --> 01:13:00.000
Oh. Well, now I kind of get what you're talking about, and…

01:13:00.000 --> 01:13:06.000
Who knows, 10, 20 years from now, that kid who sees that demo, who goes into geophysics,

01:13:06.000 --> 01:13:17.000
might unlock the key to some of the mysteries that we're talking about today. So that's what's important about stuff like that. It fires the general public's imagination.

01:13:17.000 --> 01:13:21.000
Any other quick points on communicating about San Ramon?

01:13:21.000 --> 01:13:26.000
That can guide our earthquake science and how we communicate it.

01:13:26.000 --> 01:13:30.000
I'll just mention one from the media side. I think.

01:13:30.000 --> 01:13:39.000
earthquakes, I mean, let's be honest, earthquakes get clicks on websites. Media likes clicks on websites. The more clicks they get, the higher ad rates they can charge.

01:13:39.000 --> 01:13:49.000
So clicks are money. So, often, uh, media. will sensationalize the size of quakes as a way to draw more eyeballs.

01:13:49.000 --> 01:13:54.000
And many, many people in the Bay Area haven't lived here that long, right? They've come from all over the world, they didn't grow up here.

01:13:54.000 --> 01:13:59.000
They don't understand the context, and, um, I think.

01:13:59.000 --> 01:14:02.000
I've been trying to tell other reporters at our newspaper.

01:14:02.000 --> 01:14:08.000
We shouldn't be doing stories about any earthquake that is lower than a magnitude 4.

01:14:08.000 --> 01:14:15.000
That's not really that newsworthy. They happen all the time, and unless it's right in the middle of a very populated area like Berkeley and everybody felt it.

01:14:15.000 --> 01:14:22.000
don't do that. I've seen stories about magnitude 2.9, like, people write a separate story in different media, and it's like.

01:14:22.000 --> 01:14:30.000
What are we doing? Like, nowhere in there does it say how often those occur, um, and it just completely distorts the public understanding of science. It's more.

01:14:30.000 --> 01:14:40.000
It's more heat than light. Um, and so… Um, it would be great, on this example, and some folks have done it, but on this example and on others.

01:14:40.000 --> 01:14:55.000
To really emphasize, it's super common to have earthquakes that are 2s and even 3s. They almost never cause any damage. You don't really have to worry about them. I mean, people need to hear that.

01:14:55.000 --> 01:14:56.000
You're absolutely right.

01:14:56.000 --> 01:15:00.000
Um, because they don't know.

01:15:00.000 --> 01:15:05.000
So, we have had a very active chat session, um, throughout this.

01:15:05.000 --> 01:15:13.000
roundtable, um… I have only marginally been watching, but I think I also saw a hand from Christine Goulet?

01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:17.000
I did have… yeah, okay, I did have a hand, can you guys hear me?

01:15:17.000 --> 01:15:18.000
Yes.

01:15:18.000 --> 01:15:19.000
Christine, did you want… Yes.

01:15:19.000 --> 01:15:32.000
Good. Um, I would like to hear from the panel. This has been an issue in the scientific community, and you kind of addressed it a little bit, that when a lot of us go on camera and explain things for the public,

01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:38.000
the judgment of your peers, because you didn't say exactly the right thing.

01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:46.000
This prevented me from taking interviews for years and years and years. Of course, I don't care anymore, I want people to be engaged and understand.

01:15:46.000 --> 01:15:50.000
And I'm old enough with gray hair, but…

01:15:50.000 --> 01:15:57.000
Uh, what would you say to our, you know, maybe the younger generation of scientists who haven't had the courage

01:15:57.000 --> 01:16:07.000
to take interviews, knowing that sometimes you'll say something that's not quite right, but people will understand, hopefully, the big picture. I think there's this

01:16:07.000 --> 01:16:19.000
There's this pressure to always be strictly correct, and I think we've had a lot of our scientists really do really well. Lucy, Sue, all those who really did a lot of interviews, but

01:16:19.000 --> 01:16:27.000
I can still hear the judgment and the criticisms in the back room. It's like, oh, I can't believe they said that.

01:16:27.000 --> 01:16:32.000
How do you suggest we raise the next generation of communicators?

01:16:32.000 --> 01:16:38.000
And I think that's a message we need to reinforce to them. You're communicating to the public.

01:16:38.000 --> 01:16:49.000
And if you're strictly correct all the time, you're not gonna reach the public. So, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, because I think it is still a stigma and a concern.

01:16:49.000 --> 01:16:54.000
you know, I would… I would second that, because I've personally seen it. It even goes beyond that of, like,

01:16:54.000 --> 01:16:56.000
Why is so-and-so talking about it? I do…

01:16:56.000 --> 01:16:58.000
dot dot dot. And there's…

01:16:58.000 --> 01:17:07.000
But, um, compassion, mentoring, and empathy. And encourage, you know, that it's okay, and going back to earlier comments,

01:17:07.000 --> 01:17:13.000
It's more for a talking head. So, it is like a high school science teacher can

01:17:13.000 --> 01:17:20.000
provide the information that is mostly being reported. Anybody who opens up the event page can tell you the magnitude, location, depth,

01:17:20.000 --> 01:17:22.000
Which fault it's on, and that's what

01:17:22.000 --> 01:17:26.000
in my experience here, it's what reporters are looking for, so…

01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:29.000
It's great to…

01:17:29.000 --> 01:17:31.000
normalize that…

01:17:31.000 --> 01:17:38.000
what you know, you are an expert in all parts of earthquakes, even though you may be an aftershock forecast person, or you may be a…

01:17:38.000 --> 01:17:43.000
Um, super sheer fault person, guess what? You can still talk about

01:17:43.000 --> 01:17:50.000
Subduction zone earthquake, if there happens to be one, because you are an expert… an earthquake expert for the purposes of

01:17:50.000 --> 01:17:54.000
answering the questions. If it goes into something you don't know, as Brian pointed out,

01:17:54.000 --> 01:17:59.000
I don't know, but we could find someone else who can answer that question for you.

01:17:59.000 --> 01:18:04.000
But, I don't know, it is something that I've seen, and it's something that we definitely should encourage.

01:18:04.000 --> 01:18:08.000
people early on that it's important to share the science, and you are

01:18:08.000 --> 01:18:14.000
Special. You are smart enough, you are capable of talking about stuff to the level that you're talking about.

01:18:14.000 --> 01:18:21.000
You're absolutely right. It's vital. I mean, communicating what you do is vital. People need to know what the results of the research is. You don't get to keep it to yourself.

01:18:21.000 --> 01:18:25.000
we want to know about it, but I understand exactly what you mean.

01:18:25.000 --> 01:18:28.000
Ross had pointed out the envy

01:18:28.000 --> 01:18:33.000
And I interviewed Carl Sagan a couple of times at JPL, and…

01:18:33.000 --> 01:18:38.000
Gee, people didn't like… I mean, his colleagues were not fans of his success.

01:18:38.000 --> 01:18:42.000
But, what he did was fire the imagination of a million. So, more to your point.

01:18:42.000 --> 01:18:45.000
I would say you can always qualify an answer by saying,

01:18:45.000 --> 01:18:48.000
I can give you a general idea.

01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:51.000
or what's approximately going on is this, or…

01:18:51.000 --> 01:18:59.000
Here's what we know, here's what we don't know. So all of that can be qualified, so that you're not saying this is the literal truth. And, you know, Ross doesn't

01:18:59.000 --> 01:19:02.000
come up with a Styrofoam saying, this is the literal fact.

01:19:02.000 --> 01:19:07.000
He will always say, you know, here's one idea about what we think is going on. So he's covered.

01:19:07.000 --> 01:19:11.000
The other aspect is, what are you going to do about human nature?

01:19:11.000 --> 01:19:16.000
you know, some people are fantastic at communicating, and…

01:19:16.000 --> 01:19:19.000
I envy them. Um, and anybody will…

01:19:19.000 --> 01:19:32.000
Sorry, Ross. We'll envy a Ross Stein, who's fantastic at this, but that shouldn't stop you from doing it. Um, because it's a vital part of the job. I don't know, Ross, what do you tell? Because the important thing is to get young geologists fired up about

01:19:32.000 --> 01:19:37.000
communicating what they do? Do you have advice along those lines?

01:19:37.000 --> 01:19:39.000
You're gonna make mistakes.

01:19:39.000 --> 01:19:42.000
you know, we're gonna say things to the press that we regret.

01:19:42.000 --> 01:19:45.000
Um, there's, of course, a big difference between

01:19:45.000 --> 01:19:50.000
a written story where you have time to go back to the person and say, oh, I did something wrong.

01:19:50.000 --> 01:19:58.000
You can always ask for your quotes ethically, they're… they don't have to give you the story, but they should give you your quotes, and if you decide later,

01:19:58.000 --> 01:20:01.000
that you said something you regret, you can say, could we…

01:20:01.000 --> 01:20:04.000
Could I give you a new quote, or could we re-tape this?

01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:08.000
And, you know, reporters are…

01:20:08.000 --> 01:20:13.000
Generally responsive if you just come back and say, wait a minute, let's take… let's just tape that again.

01:20:13.000 --> 01:20:16.000
You know, I haven't… I can see how to make it clear.

01:20:16.000 --> 01:20:18.000
or what I said didn't sound right.

01:20:18.000 --> 01:20:26.000
And I think reporters will be very kind to you on that. So, I think that's part of it, recognizing the reporter isn't…

01:20:26.000 --> 01:20:32.000
This isn't a got-you business. This isn't political reporting. And so the reporter is kind of on your side.

01:20:32.000 --> 01:20:35.000
trying to make a good story that will connect

01:20:35.000 --> 01:20:44.000
with their audience, and so we should be less worried about making mistakes. We will.

01:20:44.000 --> 01:20:45.000
As an early career scientist, I want to thank Christine for the question, and the panelists for the discussions.

01:20:45.000 --> 01:20:49.000
And I was…

01:20:49.000 --> 01:20:55.000
Um, any last quick points there? Because we have two hands raised and a lot of questions in the chat.

01:20:55.000 --> 01:21:00.000
I was just gonna say, older scientists should encourage younger scientists not.

01:21:00.000 --> 01:21:06.000
put them down, and. People should ask themselves, why did you want to become a scientist in the first place?

01:21:06.000 --> 01:21:07.000
Yep.

01:21:07.000 --> 01:21:17.000
This is what that goes to. Discovery. inspiration. And, you know, if somebody criticizes a younger scientist for not being exactly precise.

01:21:17.000 --> 01:21:25.000
The comeback is, do you speak the same way to a class of freshmen as you do to a class of graduate students?

01:21:25.000 --> 01:21:29.000
No. The general public is less than a class of freshmen in terms of scientific understanding.

01:21:29.000 --> 01:21:30.000
Yeah.

01:21:30.000 --> 01:21:46.000
So you have… it's appropriate to speak appropriately to each audience, and, like, everyone's gonna laugh at me on this call, but I actually think Ross could take his phone and go on TV, and a lot of people would go, oh yeah, I get this now. Now, he'd be pilloried by a lot of scientists, but.

01:21:46.000 --> 01:21:51.000
That's a pretty good understanding for the average person, right? That's what people need. They don't need.

01:21:51.000 --> 01:21:55.000
70 pages with footnotes of peer-reviewed.

01:21:55.000 --> 01:21:56.000
Thanks, Paul. Andy had a hand up.

01:21:56.000 --> 01:22:01.000
Yeah, I was gonna say that early in my career, I remember being pilloried when I walked in one morning,

01:22:01.000 --> 01:22:06.000
having just been broadcast on Good Morning America, and simplifying the

01:22:06.000 --> 01:22:09.000
how a borehole dillatometer works.

01:22:09.000 --> 01:22:16.000
So, uh, yeah, we've all been there, and uh… but on the other hand, borehole dealtometers made it onto Good Morning America.

01:22:16.000 --> 01:22:19.000
So, um, I think I wanted to go back to was the idea of

01:22:19.000 --> 01:22:22.000
sort of… there was some criticism made of…

01:22:22.000 --> 01:22:25.000
stories about really tiny earthquakes.

01:22:25.000 --> 01:22:32.000
And it may be something we've lost in the way things are communicated. So, a long time ago, there was a reporter, actually a producer,

01:22:32.000 --> 01:22:36.000
For KRON, who wanted to get out of the morning show, and he asked the USGS

01:22:36.000 --> 01:22:39.000
For a weekly earthquake map.

01:22:39.000 --> 01:22:45.000
And Al Lynn started… and I started producing this. I think Al Lynn did it, and I reviewed it every week, and we blasted it out to them, they put it on.

01:22:45.000 --> 01:22:52.000
And then it wound up on the weather page of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Chronicle mattered a whole lot more.

01:22:52.000 --> 01:22:56.000
In terms of reaching people. And we really got through the message.

01:22:56.000 --> 01:22:59.000
that people waited every week for this weekly earthquake map.

01:22:59.000 --> 01:23:03.000
And, like, people got the idea, like, there were earthquakes every week.

01:23:03.000 --> 01:23:07.000
And then we eventually, of course, make that go onto the web.

01:23:07.000 --> 01:23:12.000
And… but I don't know… so people can look at any time they want to, but maybe they never look.

01:23:12.000 --> 01:23:18.000
Right? The message is there on a constant basis. Instead of updated weekly, it's updated, you know,

01:23:18.000 --> 01:23:23.000
in seconds. But maybe we've lost this important message.

01:23:23.000 --> 01:23:33.000
That tells people earthquakes have not gone away.

01:23:33.000 --> 01:23:38.000
I'm… in the interest of time, I'm gonna give the floor to Dave Wald.

01:23:38.000 --> 01:23:43.000
Thanks, Max. This is a great forum right here. I really appreciate it. For one reason.

01:23:43.000 --> 01:23:48.000
I'm no longer afraid of Paul and Brian and Jack. If you get a call.

01:23:48.000 --> 01:24:00.000
I'll, you know, I know who you are. And I think this is one of the things that I learned early on in my career, is we had this thing at Caltech where I was at Caltech and USGS there for 15 years.

01:24:00.000 --> 01:24:09.000
We would have earthquake research affiliates, where media and industry folks would come in, and every 3 months or so, we'd have a briefing about earthquakes.

01:24:09.000 --> 01:24:16.000
But we get to know the media folks. And so, people like David Garcia or Jack Pope Joy, for first-name basis.

01:24:16.000 --> 01:24:21.000
I would never not take a call from them, you know? It would always be.

01:24:21.000 --> 01:24:26.000
something that I would be responsible for, but more importantly, I'd be comfortable doing it because I got to know them and I trust them.

01:24:26.000 --> 01:24:33.000
And the further you are, the more remote these messages come in from people that you don't know, it's a little bit.

01:24:33.000 --> 01:24:43.000
more intimidating to tackle it, so… I'm just wondering if this is one of the solutions for going forward for younger scientists to get involved, is to.

01:24:43.000 --> 01:24:46.000
is to have these occasional get-togethers where we have media.

01:24:46.000 --> 01:24:52.000
And it's actually, we would call these media training. It wasn't clear who was training who.

01:24:52.000 --> 01:24:57.000
But, you know, there's a lot of stuff on our webpages that, you know, we can take you through.

01:24:57.000 --> 01:25:02.000
The interactive maps, for instance, that are. Not so handy if you don't know how to use them.

01:25:02.000 --> 01:25:04.000
But they're very handy if you know how to use them.

01:25:04.000 --> 01:25:11.000
And, um, and I think that kind of occasional interaction will open up a lot more doors and a lot more.

01:25:11.000 --> 01:25:16.000
You know, connections that will be sound for a long time.

01:25:16.000 --> 01:25:21.000
How does the media community on this panel feel about that?

01:25:21.000 --> 01:25:29.000
Great idea. Um… I used… when I was at KQED, the team that I, uh, edited, we used to come down to.

01:25:29.000 --> 01:25:40.000
Menlo Park and meet with USGS, uh… Couple times a year. And they would have, uh… 3 or 4 scientists on the dance guard, and it was all sort of like, what are you working on?

01:25:40.000 --> 01:25:42.000
This isn't a formal interview, it's just an on-background discussion.

01:25:42.000 --> 01:25:44.000
Mm-hmm.

01:25:44.000 --> 01:25:49.000
We're just gonna ask what you're up to, because we were looking for ideas for a TV show or for radio features.

01:25:49.000 --> 01:25:55.000
Um, and as I mentioned earlier. If you are a scientist or a PIO who.

01:25:55.000 --> 01:26:01.000
kind of generally starts to understand who are the 10 or 20 reporters that cover your topic.

01:26:01.000 --> 01:26:08.000
Definitely network with them, call them, text them. and just say, hey, this is on background, this is not for attribution, but we have something cool coming up.

01:26:08.000 --> 01:26:15.000
And then once they write a story or two that you trust, where you see they get it and they're not misquoting you, you feel like you can have that back and forth.

01:26:15.000 --> 01:26:19.000
That's how you get to the relationship. And we're the same way. We want scientists.

01:26:19.000 --> 01:26:27.000
who are good communicators. I mean, TV always says, get me somebody who's a good talker. And once we find somebody who's a good talker, the reason you usually see that same.

01:26:27.000 --> 01:26:32.000
you know, flood expert or wildfire expert on the air is because they call you right back, and.

01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:41.000
They can compartmentalize and. focus things very quickly. So it's a two-way street, and I always like to tell scientists, just.

01:26:41.000 --> 01:26:49.000
Network with us, the beat reporters, the same as you network with your colleagues in other parts of your field.

01:26:49.000 --> 01:26:54.000
Yeah, I think it goes back to what… I forget whether it was Jack or Paul said, which is…

01:26:54.000 --> 01:26:56.000
you know, find a…

01:26:56.000 --> 01:27:02.000
ferret out the reporters that you like, who are knowledgeable, who've done a good job with you, and cultivate those relationships.

01:27:02.000 --> 01:27:09.000
I mean, there are a lot of reporters who don't know. There is that ebb and flow of population in the Bay Area, as was previously mentioned.

01:27:09.000 --> 01:27:12.000
A lot of people are going, what earthquake country?

01:27:12.000 --> 01:27:15.000
Um, and uh, if you…

01:27:15.000 --> 01:27:22.000
Yes, and that's true of reporters, too. They come here from North Carolina, they don't have a clue about earthquake reporting or what it means, so…

01:27:22.000 --> 01:27:27.000
you know, I would, uh… you know, be good friends with Paul and with Jack.

01:27:27.000 --> 01:27:33.000
You know, to get on… you know, Monica, everybody to, you know, get together with the reporters that you trust and that you know.

01:27:33.000 --> 01:27:39.000
have an interest and are, uh, knowledgeable, which is just what Paul said.

01:27:39.000 --> 01:27:40.000
Yeah.

01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:44.000
You can even do it by Zoom like this. You could just say, hey, we want to have an on-background chat, you know.

01:27:44.000 --> 01:27:47.000
for half an hour, about some stuff we got coming up. See if you're interested.

01:27:47.000 --> 01:27:48.000
Yeah.

01:27:48.000 --> 01:27:52.000
Yeah, I feel like I should chime in behind the curtain a little bit on things.

01:27:52.000 --> 01:27:56.000
Just for the, uh, like, reporter's sake. So…

01:27:56.000 --> 01:27:58.000
The survey…

01:27:58.000 --> 01:28:04.000
is in the unique position that, as a federal bureau agency, it's one of the few that

01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:06.000
The subject matter experts have

01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:10.000
The flexibility to actually be interviewed and speak on behalf.

01:28:10.000 --> 01:28:19.000
of the Bureau. A lot of other agencies don't have that. You go through the Office of Communications, you go through the Public Affairs, and then a statement, or they'll have a spokesperson speak on behalf

01:28:19.000 --> 01:28:23.000
of what's going on in the Bureau.

01:28:23.000 --> 01:28:26.000
Historically, that has always been something that has constantly been

01:28:26.000 --> 01:28:29.000
Depending on who's in charge, a…

01:28:29.000 --> 01:28:34.000
potential issue. Other people, it's like, it's go right at… go right ahead. You're the expert, we want you to

01:28:34.000 --> 01:28:39.000
speak about it. So, in the background, there's a… in my 25 years, have been…

01:28:39.000 --> 01:28:43.000
A constant struggle back and forth that…

01:28:43.000 --> 01:28:47.000
trying to keep the autonomy and non…

01:28:47.000 --> 01:28:54.000
political aspect of the survey as a bureau to allow its subject matter experts to speak on behalf

01:28:54.000 --> 01:28:59.000
That's a struggle, and we can say, yeah, make friends, network, do what you can with reporters,

01:28:59.000 --> 01:29:05.000
I don't know if that's going to continue to be something that's even an option, and it is constantly under…

01:29:05.000 --> 01:29:12.000
Scrutiny to have that type of relationship.

01:29:12.000 --> 01:29:17.000
the political issue can be a source of tension in ideal.

01:29:17.000 --> 01:29:19.000
Operations between scientists and… Media.

01:29:19.000 --> 01:29:25.000
Because one of the things we always talk about is, like, in academia, you can speak on behalf of yourself or what you want to do, but…

01:29:25.000 --> 01:29:30.000
as a survey employee, you're speaking on behalf of the federal government, including the administration.

01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:34.000
So, as much as you want to be able to speak about your science and what you're doing,

01:29:34.000 --> 01:29:43.000
staying in that lane, as our term or phrase we always tend to use to make sure that you don't cause any additional concerns or…

01:29:43.000 --> 01:29:50.000
inspire people to take away the privilege that we have to speak with reporters directly.

01:29:50.000 --> 01:29:58.000
Alright, well, we're getting to the end of our time. I do want to give every panelist 30 seconds to give us some parting thoughts on improving.

01:29:58.000 --> 01:30:05.000
earthquake communication to the media.

01:30:05.000 --> 01:30:06.000
Do you want to take these in some order?

01:30:06.000 --> 01:30:08.000
My go-to.

01:30:08.000 --> 01:30:09.000
Brian, go ahead.

01:30:09.000 --> 01:30:14.000
Um, I would just say, as I started out by saying, uh, just, uh, communicate.

01:30:14.000 --> 01:30:17.000
Um, it'd be nice to hear from you.

01:30:17.000 --> 01:30:22.000
Uh, and in terms of the finer aspects of this, um…

01:30:22.000 --> 01:30:28.000
Uh, practice makes perfect. And if you're one of the young GEOs at USGS,

01:30:28.000 --> 01:30:37.000
I think it's the most vital thing to make science accessible to the public, because we're all in this… I think we're all in this together. It's ultimately about public safety, and…

01:30:37.000 --> 01:30:44.000
Being aware of what some of the hazards are and communicating that, I think is part of the job. And that part of the job you learn until you do it.

01:30:44.000 --> 01:30:52.000
And if you want to be in touch with anybody about getting better at it, there's a fellow sitting down in the left-hand corner.

01:30:52.000 --> 01:30:55.000
That can really help out. So that's what I would say.

01:30:55.000 --> 01:30:56.000
Yeah.

01:30:56.000 --> 01:30:57.000
Thanks, Brian. Jack, parting words.

01:30:57.000 --> 01:31:05.000
I will not be able to articulate this as well as the other people have on the panel, but just, yeah, that we are here to communicate science, so we are…

01:31:05.000 --> 01:31:09.000
not scary or trying to get you. We want to talk with scientists and

01:31:09.000 --> 01:31:12.000
tell their stories and talk about science.

01:31:12.000 --> 01:31:16.000
Yeah. Just feel free to reach out.

01:31:16.000 --> 01:31:22.000
Fantastic. Paul, last thoughts.

01:31:22.000 --> 01:31:28.000
Thanks for having us. I appreciate it. Um, reach out anytime, we're always interested in what you do.

01:31:28.000 --> 01:31:29.000
Thank you. Steve.

01:31:29.000 --> 01:31:35.000
Uh, I always lean on consequence outweighs precision when you're talking about things, and then authenticity sells.

01:31:35.000 --> 01:31:39.000
So, be who you are, and that helps tell the story.

01:31:39.000 --> 01:31:44.000
And then do. Don't just talk about it. Don't say communications is bad.

01:31:44.000 --> 01:31:50.000
Help fix the problem. Don't just complain about it.

01:31:50.000 --> 01:31:52.000
Thanks, Steve. Russ, parting thoughts?

01:31:52.000 --> 01:31:58.000
I think talking to the public can be one of the most rewarding parts about being a scientist.

01:31:58.000 --> 01:32:04.000
So, very selfishly, it can be a joy, and so for that reason, for many people, this could really…

01:32:04.000 --> 01:32:09.000
be something that you appreciate and discover that you like to do.

01:32:09.000 --> 01:32:20.000
And if you want to get good at it, go to an elementary school. They're the perfect audience, you know? They're wonderful, you can read them, they get enthusiastic. You really learn everything you need to know.

01:32:20.000 --> 01:32:26.000
from 6th graders, or even 3rd graders. And from there, you know, you progress to reporters.

01:32:26.000 --> 01:32:31.000
So, it's not hard to lean into it, and if you're

01:32:31.000 --> 01:32:34.000
If you're at a university, yeah, write a press release,

01:32:34.000 --> 01:32:37.000
Write it up on your social media account,

01:32:37.000 --> 01:32:46.000
Um, help overcome the survey's barriers and be a supporter, so as a community as a whole, we all move forward.

01:32:46.000 --> 01:32:48.000
Awesome. Monica, send us out!

01:32:48.000 --> 01:32:53.000
So I'd say he's really pulling all of this together is…

01:32:53.000 --> 01:32:57.000
as you're communicating, paying attention to who it is you're communicating with,

01:32:57.000 --> 01:33:04.000
And in that sense, and often it becomes this binary of, oh, they're either the scientific community, or they're the general public.

01:33:04.000 --> 01:33:09.000
And the audience is much more diverse than that in terms of the informational needs.

01:33:09.000 --> 01:33:15.000
And so really paying attention to who are you communicating with, and what is the information that they're needing for

01:33:15.000 --> 01:33:20.000
The decisions they're making, be that the general public, be that…

01:33:20.000 --> 01:33:28.000
emergency managers, business continuity, it's not all the same, it's not one size fits all.

01:33:28.000 --> 01:33:45.000
Wonderful. Um, so, as a last point, um. there was the point raised of communicating back and forth of actually being in touch. So in the interest of that, would all the panelists be fine with their.

01:33:45.000 --> 01:33:54.000
Uh, email addresses being shared with. With the rest of the attendees, I don't know exactly how we can coordinate that, but I think that's… That's probably doable.

01:33:54.000 --> 01:33:57.000
We'd like to put your information in the chat, you can… just a really quick way that.

01:33:57.000 --> 01:34:03.000
How about that? That self-disclosure is the best. Um, so please go ahead, panelists, um.

01:34:03.000 --> 01:34:13.000
put your best contact information in the chat. We would love to stay in touch with you. Um, and with that, I will close our session, our roundtable.

01:34:13.000 --> 01:34:14.000
Sure.

01:34:14.000 --> 01:34:19.000
I just want to make one comment that I put a two-page cheat sheet for how reporters can access earthquake information on the chat.

01:34:19.000 --> 01:34:27.000
And one thing that I forgot to say that I wanted to say, that I feel very deeply, which is talking to the public is not dumbing it down.

01:34:27.000 --> 01:34:28.000
It's opening it out.

01:34:28.000 --> 01:34:29.000
Go for it.

01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:35.000
That's our opportunity.

01:34:35.000 --> 01:34:39.000
Great final words. Thank you, Ross. Thanks to the entire panel.

01:34:39.000 --> 01:34:48.000
Thanks to all the panelists. This was really wonderful, and I'm… I'm… yeah, really happy we got to do this. Passing the floor back.

01:34:48.000 --> 01:34:49.000
Well, thank you to all amazing moderators and our amazing panelists. That was wonderful, and I think we all learned a lot.

01:34:49.000 --> 01:34:55.000
To Sarah.

01:34:55.000 --> 01:34:59.000
Some of the truths were hard truths, and they kind of made the flamingo sad.

01:34:59.000 --> 01:35:04.000
But I think it was good for us all to hear, and I think that we've learned a lot of

01:35:04.000 --> 01:35:08.000
actionable things that we can go and take action on.

01:35:08.000 --> 01:35:18.000
So, since we did just finish this delightful session, I am not going to attempt to recap that, but I'm just going to say a few words about how wonderful this workshop has been, how wonderful the participants have been.

01:35:18.000 --> 01:35:24.000
We really appreciate everyone coming and making time to share their work and their thoughts.

01:35:24.000 --> 01:35:28.000
in, you know, what has obviously been a really difficult year for a lot of people.

01:35:28.000 --> 01:35:34.000
So, I hope you all had… got something good out of it. I hope you all give yourself a lot of love.

01:35:34.000 --> 01:35:37.000
Um, some of the takeaways I had…

01:35:37.000 --> 01:35:45.000
Science-wise, will that, um, we're learning some amazing things about the Mendocino Triple Junction, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

01:35:45.000 --> 01:35:54.000
I was starting to see some real connections between creep and the potential for earthquakes to go through different regions, and that's something that needs to be explored more.

01:35:54.000 --> 01:36:03.000
Possibly, especially in terms of where might we not expect ruptures to go through, and what that might mean for the creeping section of the San Andreas Fault.

01:36:03.000 --> 01:36:05.000
Um…

01:36:05.000 --> 01:36:09.000
I was really struck by the…

01:36:09.000 --> 01:36:14.000
important playback between using remote sensing to find whale.

01:36:14.000 --> 01:36:20.000
We should be looking for things in the field, and how to direct things in the field, and I hope that's a synergy, if that's

01:36:20.000 --> 01:36:29.000
needs to be fostered and loved. We had some really interesting discussion about what faults need to be shown on earthquake.usgs.gov, and David Shelley has already gone out to try and

01:36:29.000 --> 01:36:33.000
Get that fixed! So that is fantastic!

01:36:33.000 --> 01:36:38.000
And, um, well, so you have said that there's still lots of work to be done,

01:36:38.000 --> 01:36:42.000
And risk reduction takes, um, more than research, and Brian Orson said,

01:36:42.000 --> 01:36:46.000
Willie, we gotta mount up on our bikes and get out and go mapping, so…

01:36:46.000 --> 01:36:49.000
I think that's cool, and then I will leave things with David Quilkos.

01:36:49.000 --> 01:36:53.000
Well, Mark, but earthquake science is cool.

01:36:53.000 --> 01:36:55.000
So, with that,

01:36:55.000 --> 01:36:57.000
Thank you all for coming to this workshop!

01:36:57.000 --> 01:37:08.000
You are the people who make it fantastic, and I hope you all come again next year.