FYI: The Yuba Fire update provided by CalFire is here.
It’s fashionable to bang away on government nowadays (just read The Union editorials, as well as its very right-wing, tea party tax protesting columnists such as George Rebane, who’s at it again on Saturday, beating a dead horse).
But let’s extend some kudos to CalFire and its “government” workers this weekend in the case of fighting the Yuba Fire.
First, they fight the fire, which is getting challenging as it jumped the Yuba River. (These people risk their lives, hence the early-age retirement provisions in their pensions. The guys I know who take advantage of it had managerial desk jobs most of their careers.)
Second, let’s not fool ourselves: CalFire is the primary source of information about fires to the local media, and in turn, to us. (The latest Calfire update that is online, at 5:45 p.m., now shows the Yuba Fire is only 15 percent contained, a reversal from much of the day.)
The Union, Yubanet (yes, Yubanet), KNCO and anybody else depends on their officials and their Web site for timely, accurate information – no easy task when you’re talking about a forest fire.
Providing the information on the CalFire Web site means reporters can cover a fire in real time from a much safer vantage point (often at their desk), rather than being on the scene all the time to get the “scoop.” It’s an efficient and safe way to disseminate official information.
Third, CalFire is among the most *Internet saavy* government agency we have: providing the fire information in real time – in text, maps and charts. It’s extremely comprehensive.
In addition, CalFire started to provide an RSS feed on fire updates, something that is so useful I make gave it a home on my blog during the fire season. It’s unfortunate the feed was down on Saturday. There’s no better technology than an RSS feet for getting real-time information. I wish more local media coverage of fires included fire-specific RSS feeds.
However, the link to the Yuba Fire site worked fine and showed their daily updates. It was readily accessible.
It is designed in a way to quickly highlight the latest pertinent information, something I cannot always find quickly on Yubanet or The Union. One example: the detail at 5:45 p.m. that the fire was only 15 percent contained. The Union is still reporting 35 percent containment, and you have to go to a long list of fires to find this figure on Yubanet. As for KNCO’s Web site, it is hopelessly out of date this weekend.
I also used the phone to bring up the problems of the RSS feed to CalFire officials early this morning. They were attentive and are working on it.
In short, CalFire’s actions are a reminder that government officials are not faceless, money grubbing, desk-sitting bureaucrats.
They risk their lives to protect the homes of our community members, including people who constantly bang on government for partisan political reasons and probably would sing a much different tune when a fire broke out in their neighborhood. Some of them also might stop griping about “government invasion” when it comes to policies to build a defensible space.
If you’ve ever known firefighters or been on a live fire scene, as I have, you’d understand what I mean: It’s a lot easier to save a home that is protected in advance, and it’s hard to save every home.
The Yuba Fire is a poinant reminder that we need to hear the other side of government story too.
Filed under: Uncategorized
[...] See “Kudos to CalFire” for further discussion. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Google zaps Chrome [...]
One more try… looks like maybe blogger drops comments with full web addresses in the text??
Looks like the blogger tool discards too-long posts or something along those lines… short version:
why are we bickering about who is best or where the info originates? Calling out the lack of acknowledgment of yubanet fire news’s excellent coverage is hardly the same as denouncing calfire. Of course it all starts with calfire.
ok that seems to be it… don’t include the full web addresses in comments I guess… here’s what I had tried to submit:
This post is kind of disturbing Jeff. A couple of posts back you mentioned that local media coverage of the fire in general is very much lacking, especially on the weekend. That is not an accurate claim if you take yubanet’s fire news into account.
This post on the other hand seems to deal with a completely different topic – defensiveness about people badmouthing government.
I don’t see how the two are related at all. Probably both are true. But there seems to be an undercurrent in this post that there is a connection between the two comments.
It sounds as if the conclusion in your post is that because several people like yubanet’s fire coverage, and take issue with the fact that you give it very little print space and very little acknowledgment (or maybe that’s just me), that those same people think that calfire has nothing to do with it and is a wasted entity.
Of course yubanet gets their info from calfire. Where else would they get it? They then build upon it with information and discussion relevant to locals. Simply because 3 plus 1 equals 4 does not trivialize, marginalize, or negate the importance of the number 3. 3 is where it begins. You can’t even start the equation without 3. To assume that we are denouncing the number 3 simply because we think that 4 is more than 3 is a just bit off base. In fact it’s a sign of defensiveness where probably none is needed.
On the other hand, to only mention the number 3 (calfire), and to barely acknowledge the number 4 (yubanet), and to note that other players are out of the running (union, knco), and to not even mention kvmr who just had a 15 minute phone call on the air with Pascale from yubanet (who did mention that they get their info from calfire of course), is the definition of one-sided reporting.
Ultimately, of course we know that this is your blog. But, I think you are disenfranchising your readers (at least one I can think of) by repeatedly not giving the full story about local coverage, not modifying the earlier post denouncing local media fire coverage in general, and repeatedly deciding not to say ‘yubanet’ (we can see you wince and shudder when you type it and I’d love to know why).
Also, earlier today I found out that yubanet does have the fire news on rss, though I didn’t see them on the web site right away either:
yubanet.com/localfire.xml
yubanet.com/CAfire.xml
yubanet.com/fire.xml
Curious to hear back from you on this.
Stepping back: at least now folks know about some more info sources:
calfire yuba fire page, just a repeat of your link at the top:
cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/incidents/incidents_details_info?incident_id=364
yubanet yuba fire page:
yubanet.com/nevada/Yuba.php
Why this is a peeing contest is beyond me. At least the info is available and folks are making good use of it! So kudos to everyone involved beginning with calfire!
Another interesting bit – KVMR is having another fire update right now. Yubanet and KVMR both also are getting info from Yuba County OES and Nevada County OES. The calfire page doesn’t have that info. Specifically:
from yuba OES:
EVACUATION CENTER AT LOMA RICA CHURCH TO CLOSE TONIGHT
from NevCo OES:
shelter at NevCity Elks lodge open by about 8:30
also – large animals can be taken to penn valley rodeo…
just repeating from Pascale on the radio on kvmr.
more:
http://www.kvmr.org at the top has a link to yubanet fire news and also the yubanet fire rss feed. Note kvmr (89.5) is the local designated/approved emergency broadcast station too.
Tom,
As you said, it all begins with CalFire. It’s where I’d go first for information if my neighborhood were about to burn down. Nothing personal, it’s pragmatic. The information is “from the horse’s mouth,” timely and credible. And the Internet, combined with CalFire’s proactive “reporting,” has made it all possible. Too often, we forget that government Web sites (God forbid) are becoming major players in dissemination of information, for this, meeting agendas and background to public sector decision-making. This is not issue-oriented coverage (like politics), but it is pragmatic, straightforward information that I need to make a decision in a hurry (evacuate or not). Kudos to all the other information providers too. One thing I really like about YubaNet is its comments on the fires: People who want to help other people. That’s a valuable form of communication beyond the cell phone in a fire. I’m also glad we could get a discussion going about fire coverage on this blog. I don’t see it happening anywhere else. Cheers.
Yes, ultimately we’re all on the same page and in the same boat.
Thanks for providing this forum.
If Calfire only updates its web info 2x/day (as I’ve heard; haven’t checked) that’s not enough.
IMO they should use Twitter, for updates.
Yeah I had heard the 2x thing too (and put it in a comment here too) but I’ve never checked it and I don’t actually believe it. I’m sure it’s all ‘as needed’ with calfire at the helm.
For the record, CalFire updated at least 4x today. The latest from tonight:
2,000 acres – 15% containment. The fire is getting *a lot* worse. The Union and KNCO have fallen behind, clocking out before 5 p.m., though Yubanet is keeping up tonight. My preference for CalFire over Yubanet is the packaging. I have a hard time getting the highlights from Yubanet’s updates, compared with CalFire.
YubaNet and KVMR both post emergency information not only from government sources but respected people in the community in real time. Locals call in information during all emergency situations as they see it and both YubaNet and KVMR respond. That is a lot of reporters.
Saturday night at 8pm, KNCO had a live news update, I think it was Rita Stevens, advising of the threat to French Corral.
Good to hear KNCO has something every once in a while.
Back on topic, however, the original question was not whose coverage is best. The question was whether you still stand behind the previous post’s assertion that local media coverage has no shining stars in the fire coverage area.
That’s a pretty dismissive and offensive assertion, and it’s pretty much been disproven here, and seeing as there’s been ample opportunity to modify or retract or even to further explain that assertion, and that you haven’t jumped on that opportunity, I think we’re just wondering how to go about ‘helping to connect the dots’ in this case.
Tom,
It’s OK to agree to disagree. We’re in a full blow 2,200 acre fire now, with ash and smoke all around. The fire is only 15 percent contained, compared to 35 percent before. Last night neither The Union nor KNCO were reporting online that the fire was only 15 percent contained rather than 35 percent because it had jumped the river and grown. This update came at 5:45 p.m. from CalFire — one of multiple updates during the day, not just two. The Union’s last update on Saturday was just before 5 p.m. KNCO’s last Web update was from Friday night. Though Yubanet was keeping up, it was not highlighted well enough for me: The information about the containment changing should have been on the front door. I do like the interactive chat going on, however. I’m depending on the CalFire updates, then going to the local media reports. Also CalFire’s RSS feed is back up, and it’s been reposted to this blog.