It’s no secret that our favorite subject in Quebec is the weather, because of its impact on daily life, its seasonal variability, its impact on leisure activities and, above all, of our general interest in the matter. But weather risks can also be a social, economic and political issue because of the potentially serious consequences they can have on people and businesses. Of course, the weather has a direct impact on the health and well-being of the population. It can also have a significant influence on the economy, disrupting commercial, industrial and agricultural activities. Meteorological risks are therefore a political issue, given the challenges they pose in the management of public resources and decision-making.
In the Quebec media portrait, the weather is one of the subjects most covered by the media, well ahead of education, seniors and poverty!
Public authorities have a responsibility to provide reliable and up-to-date weather information to help citizens protect themselves from potential dangers and make informed decisions. The media also have a responsibility to convey this information in a clear, accurate and responsible manner, without “sensationalising”. But new terms with an alarmist flavor have come to feed headlines and journalists, which cheerfully colors our anticipation of bad weather in Quebec.
If the more frequent use of alarming terms such as devastating storm, extreme cold, winter heat wave, deadly heat waves, atmospheric river, brutal thaw, weather bomb and torrential rain pays off and attracts readers, can this, in return , creating confusion and minimizing real risks?
Analysis of weather coverage in Quebec reveals the frequent use of alarming terms to describe weather conditions. For example, between 2016 and 2017 in Quebec, the term “weather bomb” experienced a 1000% growth in media content, according to Influence Communication (2018). Although these terms can draw attention to potential dangers, and the media defends itself from overusing them, this phenomenon can also contribute to the “sensationalization” of weather events and the dissemination of exaggerated or erroneous information. It can confuse people and cause them to engage in risky behaviors in response to weather situations that are not as severe as they think, or vice versa.
In addition, excessive use of alarming terms can reduce the credibility of media weather coverage, fuel cynicism, and compromise the media’s ability to effectively inform people about real weather events. It can also hamper the ability of public authorities to communicate the information needed to manage potentially dangerous situations.
By dint of crying wolf, we create in the population a tolerance for bad news that could put them in danger.
It is established that in terms of meteorological risk management, coordination between the different actors is crucial to guarantee a rapid and effective response in the event of a disaster. It is still necessary to be able to identify the risks to which we could be exposed and to want to face them. A democratic society can only function on the basis of a certain number of shared evidence. As such, it must have access to reliable sources of information recognized as such by a large majority of fellow citizens.
In a situation of disaster risk reduction, if on the one hand the recommendation of science is the reduction of ecological, biological, human and economic losses and on the other hand, the interest of governments is to protect their potential voters and that of the media is to sell the news, the prevailing relativism, the legitimization of marginal points of view, the questioning of expert discourse and the systematic distrust of institutions, the media and democratic authorities undermine these consensuses.
With global climate change, the frequency and intensity of climatic disasters will increase. The media must maintain a key role in the information transmitted to citizens while balancing the transparency and quality of information with risk awareness. Excessive use of alarming terms undermines the credibility of information.
Finally, we, newspaper readers and consumers of weather news, make sure to limit the resonance of sensational terms and avoid amplifying this phenomenon by reducing our use of superlatives during weather conversations from 5 to 7!