Fake news is on the agenda, more than ever, and there has been a lot of emphasis on the presence of fake news in society, either with the aim of (only) misleading the population on a certain subject, or to receive likes and views that subsequently generate fame and even money to those who are behind these fake news.
Our field of action is no different, and this is a subject that VOST Portugal has been working on. An example of our concern is the proposal that was presented for the validation of information that is shared on social networks in emergency situations, as described in our article UNTOVAS.
Recently we have seen, both on social media and in the media, the spread of false weather forecasts, resulting then in false weather alerts. What's the reason for this? Of the two, one: or the incessant search for likes, shares, views, etc. through fake and sensational news; or the lack of information on the part of those who create this false content, not worrying about evaluating the veracity of the information they are sharing. In addition, we continue to have headlines that always pull on the more alarmist side of information, often exaggerated: “The Worst Winter of the Century”, “Arctic Cold Wave Invades the Country”, “Infernal heat will stop the country”. We have all read them, but very few seek to understand where this information comes from and whether it has any scientific support. Usually, he doesn't.
A specific case that happened recently, on November 29, 2018, was an amateur weather page to have published a map with some unofficial weather warnings that went against the warnings and official weather forecasts of the Portuguese Institute of the Sea and Atmosphere. In this specific case, the published map placed some places in the northern interior under red wind warning due to the (alleged) forecast of wind gusts above 100km/h. In this map it was also possible to observe that much of the territory of mainland Portugal was under yellow warning due to the possibility of thunderstorms.
Both forecasts (wind > 100km/h and thunderstorm) were refuted by the official forecasts of IPMA, since the official meteorological agency of Portugal did not forecast wind gusts exceeding 65km/h (80km/h in the highlands) nor did it claim that there were conditions for thunderstorms to occur.
No wind gusts above 67 km/h were recorded and no thunderstorms occurred.
Typically these maps of unofficial warnings are generated automatically through algorithms that work the data received by weather models, and issue warnings if the weather model predicts a risk situation for a given location. We promise to write an article exclusively dedicated to this issue of meteorological models, to better understand what is at stake when we talk about this topic.
It is very important to highlight that only official bodies can issue meteorological warnings and alert states to the population about the risks that may arise from the foreseen conditions, in this case IPMA and ANPC. No other organisation has the authority to issue warnings and/or alerts, and the use of the words “Meteorological Notice” and “Population Alert” can only come from IPMA and ANPC (or municipal civil protection services), respectively.
Another case, but within the same meteorological situation, was how the media interpreted the warning made by the National Civil Protection Authority: At the beginning of that statement, it was stated that ‘a worsening of weather conditions, with persistent and sometimes heavy rainfall, atmospheric instability (thunderstorm) and sea turmoil on the western coast, is expected within the next 48 hours’. Although soon after it was written that on the 30th only weak showers were expected, the media soon began to share wrongly that within 48 hours of this announcement there were possibilities of flooding and tree falls, when this risk was only limited to the 29th (Thursday).
VOSTPT activation #StopRumores
Still within this same meteorological situation, a television station in the first three hours of the morning of its newscast announced winds of 105 km/h for the national territory. VOST Portugal, knowing that the information was not correct first contacted IPMA, confirmed that the information was wrong, and contacted the television station in question at the same time as using their social networks to enlighten the population. The television station corrected the information for the correct information in its next information blocks.
CONCLUSION
The consequences of spreading wrong weather information have real consequences: cancellation of both professional and recreational activities, and a “Pedro e Lobo” problem in which the population becomes immune to certain information because they always end up not happening as advertised.
We can all be part of the process of not letting this information spread, always starting by checking if the information that is being given to us is the same as that on the IPMA website.
However, the authorities also have an important role here, which we must not forget, to create a capital of trust with the people.
Fake news is everywhere, and we all have to have it. audacity to verify whether the information is true or false, especially when it is shared by unofficial bodies, as happened in the first case that was described. The eagerness to gain fame is something very present in these times, especially in the digital world. Unfortunately there are many cases in which those who incessantly seek to see their name or their page in the spotlight make use and abuse of alarmist, sensationalist, and mostly false news.
English