The problem of FUBU - EM Jargon

Have you heard of the acronym "FUBU?" It means "For Us By Us." It happens to be a brand name for clothing, but it also happens to represent the type of language that is commonly used within an organization to communicate complex ideas using shorthand. It's information created BY YOU for people LIKE YOU. You have to have insider knowledge to get the importance of the language and have education to understand the nuances of it's meaning.

This reminds me of Gen Z language explainers. I have turned to slang dictionaries many times in the past as I try to learn more about how my college students are communicating. Words like "ghosting," and "flex" take on new definitions; creations like "delulu" and "rizz" are abbreviations of common words, but used creatively; phrases like "no cap" have an entire back story involving dentistry and gold teeth. To get it, you have to be part of it; it was created by Gen Z, FOR Gen Z. On advice from my Gen Z students - people of my generation (X) really should not even TRY to use their language. It's just embarassing.

But sometimes I find that FUBU crosses over into the language used by professionals to communicate complex ideas to the public. Words and phrases that represent thresholds and severity levels, stages and status, and even activations get plopped into alerts and warnings for severe and imminent danger. At exactly the time when you don't want your population going to Google and looking up "emergency management slang," they may be forced to.

Let's take a look at today's example that comes from a wildfire event this past month.

90-character and 360-character Wireless Emergency Alerts for a wildfire

This message includes three types of jargon.

First is the use of levels. In previous research, Kuligowski et al. described how this type of language represents technical thresholds on a scale. In some scales, the higher number means the risk is increasing, in other scales, it is the lower number. Here, level 3 indicates an increased severity, where the risk has met a particular threshold.

The second jargon is "fire evacuation - GO." This language represents words included in a series of actions (ready, set, go). The ready, set, go program for wildfire was originally designed for preparedness education in California. It was intended to help people to mitigate properties, develop strategies for evacuation, and to be ready to leave if or when they are told to leave. A "fire evacuation - GO" signifies a move from that instructive language that is part of a series of actions, to legalese.

The third jargon is indicated by the use of the words "has been issued." This signifies that the entire first part of the message "a level 3 fire evacuation - GO" has a specific definition and with it's issuance, specific actions are supposed to be taken. None of that is clearly exlained in the message, instead a message receiver must interpret and determine how to act on the information they have received.

Now lets turn to the rest of the message. If you follow the Warning Response Model and read the Warn Room blog often, you know that these messages lack some key content. Not included is the source of the message, the name of the hazard (unless you could fire evacuation), the impact of the hazard, the time of the message, and the guidance. This means that the clearest piece of information contained is the location. And in this case, the location of Beverly near Lower Crab Creek is receiving an order, but no instructions.

Of course there is also another glaring issue in these messages. There are two messages shown and they are identical. One is for a 90-character WEA, the other, the exact same message, is for a 360-character WEA. Did you know that 95% of phones today can receive a 360-character WEA? Why would you copy and paste that exact same, limited information message into a longer message?

Warn.PBS actually shows that there was quite a bit of additional information, but it was contained in the instructions field. This means people have access to details about the event, the location, and guidance on what to do. But not every person has access to that information therefore not every person will be able to take immediate action based upon the message they received.

What are the alternatives?

1. write messages using plain language. If you MUST include the FUBU-EM jargon, you should also explain the hazard and guidance in plain language. Include something like the following: there is an active wildfire that is burning and heading toward Beverly. You must leave now. Do not delay.

2. write messages that are complete. People receive dozens of notifications each day and they need to know who a message is from, what the hazard is, where it is located, what actions they should take, and an element of timing.

3. do not copy and paste your 90 character message into the 360 character box. You'd be surpised at how much information can go into a long message and most of your population is likely to be able to receive that message.

I stopped trying to learn the Gen Z slang a year ago. Their jargon will continue to evolve and they'll grow more sophisticated in communicating about delulu rizz things. And I think its a reasonable expectation that this language built by them is truly for them. But alerts and warnings are not the same. The public deserves to understand the message they receive without having to do mental gymnastics to interpret the jargon included. In some cases, it's a matter of life and death.

For more information on alerts and warnings, especially on how to write effective messages, be sure to download the Warning Lexicon. Or reach out! I'm glad to help.