​​I don’t see how we can’t talk about climate change. The facts are overwhelming, the science is sound, and our wildland fire experiences validate both. 

Now, I get that the topic is uncomfortable and I certainly get that while not official policy, not saying much if anything about climate change is a preference that has been well communicated by the current administration. Obviously, it’s a political minefield and I’m not advocating climbing on top of the soapbox and preaching. Most of the time, I don’t think communicators on wildland fires or other disasters should bring it up. But neither should we shy away from discussing climate change when it is appropriate or when asked by the public, stakeholders, cooperators, or the media. As incident responders, we have the obligation to honestly confront reality and as true crisis communicators we have a responsibility to discuss that reality in a way that establishes competence and confidence. If we dance around the topic in an obvious fashion, we damage our standing and the public’s view of our expertise.

Many organizations require their employees to undergo regular training on personal ethics. The goal of these trainings is to expose one to the common humanity and encourage you to not be a jerk. Yet while we spend numerous hours on the personal, we rarely talk about the larger ethical issues revolving around what we do as organizations--in this case, as emergency responders--even though many of the decisions we make before and during a crisis have ethical dimensions. For example, in the wildland fire world, we routinely prioritize the protection of communities and major infrastructure over individual homes, smaller clumps of structures, and other values when suppression resources are tight and the number of incidents are large. Is this right? Is it moral? Ethical? Is it ethical for leadership to place those decisions on IMTs and other responders? Is it ethical for the decisions to be made without an extensive public discussion about the values that will be applied to those decisions?

​About the time I finally became a Type I Public Information Officer, I became frustrated with the inability to advance my knowledge and skills beyond the standard courses. After maxing out on NWCG and FEMA classes and then teaching everything I could, there was no set avenue for further learning. Local colleges offered Communications courses but there was nothing in those classes that would get at what I wanted, assuming I could even describe what I wanted.

It all led me to the obvious conclusion that there is a training and information deficit for advanced PIOs and Public Affairs Officers in government service. This will be the first in a series of posts where I talk about what I have found out there and I hope it will engender discussion and recommendations from others. This is certainly not to be considered the final word--it is merely what I found to be useful information.

Welcome to the Anchor Point Blog, by me, Jim Whittington, of Whittington & Associates, LLC which is on www.incident-service.com. Whew. There will be regular guest bloggers too. I bet you can guess their names.

This blog will discuss IMT dynamics, leadership, incident information, crisis communications, risk communications, media issues on incidents, NWCG and FEMA training, emergency management, academia, wildland fire, and other directly or tangentially related topics. There might even be posts that are not related at all. Here’s some other admin stuff:

• This is a blog and our goal is for it to be informative. Most of the time, anyway. It will be opinionated some of the time. Arguments could break out. It's all good.
• If you’d like us to post on a certain issue, just drop a note in the comments section and we’ll consider it.
• The schedule for posts will be as regular as we have something compelling to say—this one excepted.
• I chose the title “Anchor Point” because it is not only a key concept in the world of wildland fire, but it is also a good approach to take when confronted with a messy situation that demands immediate action on the communications front. Plus, it sounds cool. 
• If you haven’t figured it out yet, here, communication means “the imparting or exchanging of information or news” and not the radios, batteries, and repeaters kind of things the Communications Unit manages on an incident.
• Speaking of that, I’ll probably do a “Terms” post soon looking at the differences between incident information, crisis communications, risk communications, etc.
• We’ll try not to repeat ourselves from post to post, but it may be difficult for us to not repeat ourselves from post to post.
• I don't expect any ruffians, bots, or purveyors of filth to frequent this blog--but still--be considerate of others in the comments. Salty language may be OK if it is used to make a legitimate point about rhetoric, but not gratuitously and certainly not as insults.
• I like basketball, so there will be occasional basketball references.
• We'll do the best we can, but we will make errors, write poorly, and wax confusingly. If you see any major issues, let us know. We are all about learning through failure.
• Just hitting the publish key on a post is enough to bring it under the shield of copyright, but let me say explicitly that every thing in the blog is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. Academic use is approved with notification and attribution. Though why any academic would want to use something from here escapes me at the moment.
• That said, nobody pays attention to copyright on the Internet, so if you use anything from here, please attribute and link. Oh, and say good things about us. Thanks.
• If you don't follow those guidelines, be forewarned: I know a guy who knows some lawyers. 
• I reserve the right to update this post as circumstances demand. 

Thanks for being here. I hope this will turn into something fun and rewarding for everyone.
_____
Jim