| Abstrak/Abstract |
The creation of new terms in such a media-led way is not helpful in hazard and risk communication, as it promotes the feeling that the hazard is somehow new, unknown, poorly understood, and, therefore, more frightening (Harris & Lanfranco 2017). For the case of Lahar Dingin, this was reflected in the many instances of the question: What is cold lava? When uncertainty exists, it should be the job of the press agency and/or journalist to fact-check, as was the case for the Associated Press in the case considered here. The journalist, though, is working on a tight schedule, so needs an answer now. Journalists reporting on an ongoing natural disaster need to work to extremely tight time deadlines and a need to publish in near-real time (e.g., Friedman 1986; Williams 2010; Harris 2015). Thus, the journalist will likely not have the time to follow all possible leads.
It should thus be the duty of all scientists to track cases of confusion, and then to reach out to the media so as to correct such mistranslations, assignment of fake words, misconceptions, and inappropriate definitions. This needs to be done as soon as possible through a direct approach to science and staff writers at media outlets because, as we see with the case of “cold lava,” fake terminology can go viral in a matter of a few hours. Then, as we can see from the French language proliferation of the false term Lave Froide, once entrenched in the popular literature can be very difficult to correct. |
