Maladaptive alliance between the media and the people

Reporters often desperate to put " its absolutely huge " in the mouths of the people they interview, alienating most of the people in the area who know its not.
It must be said that many people enjoy a good disaster . The point is, because its not good to " admit it so" , just to recognise the truth - that it is so .If we don't face the truth when danger or perceived danger exists we risk being circumscribed by our own denials. Disasters can be good for business ( some ) and certainly are often good for leaders ( because they come and go they can look like something " they've solved" cf what they do normally during the year ) and the media .
The medai should be on a big leash when governments allow them to provide warnings for real issues ( imagine "60 minutes "on every channel ) Noone reading this should ignore the huge additional energy and resources added by audience interest. Is such energy productive is my main question ?
I get into trouble for not listening to warnings and worries ( I have just a little trouble feeling for tearful leaders who recently allowed buildings in a flood prone zone - Brisbane river recently) from the media and politicians (yesterdays warnings about Cairns and Cyclone Yasi )Many flagging leaders get an unexpected boost from disasters . If nature is the determinant , it not in the interests of leaders to stop disasters.
But you only have to look at how an anticipated risk tends to be seen as " the biggest risk ever "to get a sense of the exaggeration effect that so often characterizes media anticipation.
I am not saying don't listen if you are in the area but the energy loss from such a focus is disturbing when the focus really needs to be local planning and design focused to avoid cynicism amongst those facing the wolf .You only have to ask people in disaster areas what they really think of all the media and political interest to realise that all this conspicuous care is not always recognised as such - sometimes the opposite .
Now today in Cairns ( with the "biggest cyclone ever ") the press are driving around looking desperately for damage and repeating the warnings that polys have been making Even tall trees have leaves , banana trees fall over easily and typically cyclone damage is a big unpredictable in " where it really hits " ( the winds are on the edge ? ) .
There is a strong case that its better, like parents, it better to be thought a panic parent than have your children hurt. Clearly with post cyclone dangers ( moving roof iron , electricity wires down )the warnings are very important .
My point is that this projection business can impact adversely on the protection business. For decades now , emergency focus has been growing while planning focus wanes ( while this is a normal tendency , the growing alliance between media , the people and algophobic elements is- no more so because of the later element in particular ) .Planning too is a real job worth doing where the emergency and remedial stuff is much less attractive ( kids need an attractive if challenging job)
What do you think ? How can we really balance public desire to support / prevent disaster with better planning .
Fewin or out of the hype time want to ensure the best way to avoid disasters is adopted- plan for them . The best way to deal with risk is to ensure there are local observers and power people in place.
Designated as a shelter , a Senior citizens centre in Cairns collapsed and only the initiative of a nurse prevented "a real disaster" - why don't all cyclone towns have reliable shelters. It s the planning problem right!!!!!
I think its this lack of planning people ( diminishing in the last decade)that grates . The main way to reduce the impact of disasters is to plan well and avoid generalized panic.( the very things that we are spending less on in between them )