A Tragedy of Communication During Cyclone Ditwah
Photo courtesy of DW
When there is no clear yardstick to measure the seriousness of a situation, when the seriousness relates to an event that hasn’t happened yet, how that seriousness is perceived and how people respond to that seriousness depends mainly on how it is communicated – on the language, tone, mode, delivery and structure.
For example, would telling someone in a calm, non-urgent tone, “You should eat healthy” actually motivate them to stick to a proper diet? Or do you need firmer, more concrete language that clearly conveys the risk such as, “If you keep skipping vegetables and eating junk every day, your cholesterol will spike and you’ll feel it when you can’t climb a flight of stairs without losing your breath and worse it can even lead to a heart attack.” The latter paints a tangible, relatable risk whereas the former is too vague and lacks urgency.
Similarly, assume that you expect a six year-old girl not to accept gifts from strangers. Would you communicate that through a written note that says, “Refrain from accepting items from unverified external parties”? Would you be convinced that the little girl would protect herself? I wouldn’t be either. The reason is obvious. This note neither communicates the seriousness of the situation nor can the girl understand it because of the difficult language.
Among the many reasons that contributed to the unprecedented loss of lives and property during one of Sri Lanka’s worst natural disasters since the 2004 tsunami, communication failure stands out as a primary factor. Negligence of state institutions, lack of timely action and unplanned infrastructure projects all played a role but the focus here is on how critical communication is and how its failure amplified the tragedy.
Using technical jargon
The recent rains under Cyclone Ditwah resulted in some of the worst recorded downpours in several districts in decades, causing widespread damage and loss of life. Curious to find out how the seriousness of this disaster was communicated by the relevant authorities, I visited the Facebook page of the Sri Lanka Meteorology Department. What I discovered blew my mind. Days before the tragedy struck, most of the information shared on its page focused only on Cyclone Ditwah and the conditions of rain, winds and sea state. What was indeed alarming was how the impending danger – the dagger hanging over our heads – was communicated. Let me share an excerpt: “The depression over south-east of Sri Lanka has intensified into a deep depression and is centered near latitude 6.7°N and longitude 82.1°E, about 120 km south-east of Batticaloa. It is very likely to move nearly north-northwestwards and intensify into a Cyclonic storm during the next 12 hours.”
This was shared on November 27, almost a day before the actual disaster struck. Would a layperson understand this and even if by a miracle they do, would they understand the urgency of the situation?
In the Sinhala version, most of the information appears to be communicated in technical jargon that only an expert could understand and the content is far too general and vague. It does not even indicate the specific areas that were actually affected by adverse weather conditions. Most importantly, do you feel the seriousness of the situation after reading this? Could someone in a vulnerable area grasp the urgency or realise they needed to evacuate immediately?
The risk is obvious. If so, shouldn’t we communicate this in simple language so that the general public can understand? Isn’t that the purpose of communication?
Let’s look at how the same message could have been communicated keeping the meaning intact while still including the technical terms: “A strong storm is forming southeast of Batticaloa, about 120 km away. It is moving toward the north-northwest and is expected to become a dangerous cyclone within the next 12 hours. People living in coastal and low lying areas should prepare for heavy rain, strong winds and possible flooding. Areas that are expected to be affected are xxxx”
If technical jargon is useful, it should come after the core message that everyone needs to understand. Otherwise people won’t act because comprehension fails.
A basic principle of communication is to use language that your audience understands. The reason is simple – we comprehend only what we understand and only if we understand do we act. Therefore, when the language is beyond our level of comprehension, understanding becomes impossible and as a result meaningful action cannot take place.
The tone and delivery
The most effective communication often engages multiple senses, especially visual, auditory and emotional cues that significantly improves understanding and retention. Most of the communication related to Cyclone Ditwah on the Facebook page of the Meteorology Department and the Disaster Management Centre was communicated through maps and text. If any was communicated through news reporting, the tone was flat and did not emphasise how seriously evacuation should be considered.
We’re currently living in an unprecedented time in history with technological advances at their peak. So what could have been done to communicate this more effectively?
- Provide short, emotional video alerts
A 20-30 second video with strong visuals, an urgent voice tone and clear instructions delivered in Sinhala and Tamil would have had far greater impact than a text post. This engages both the visual and auditory senses and if scripted properly could effectively engage the viewer emotionally. - Push emergency notifications directly to mobile phones
Sri Lanka has 30+ million mobile connections. A mandatory SMS alert sent through all networks in simple Sinhala/Tamil could save thousands of lives. Something like, “DANGER: Cyclone approaching. Major floods expected. Move to safe ground immediately. Areas at risk: XXX. Follow police and Grama Sevaka instructions.” - Present clear, simple evacuation guides
A one page graphic showing what to pack, where to go, how to protect children and what not to do would have given families clarity instead of panic. - Ensure a strong, urgent tone from officials
This disaster needed a spokesperson who could convey urgency, not just information. A monotone weather update does not move people to evacuate; a firm, clear, emotionally grounded voice does. - Use relatable examples, not coordinates
Instead of “The cyclone is 120 km southeast of Batticaloa,” say, “The cyclone will reach Sri Lanka within twelve hours. People living near rivers, hillsides and low lying areas must leave immediately.” Time is more relatable than distance, which is abstract for most readers. - Use colour coded alerts instead of paragraphs
A simple national system – green, yellow, orange, red – shown on maps, TV and phones would allow even a child to understand:
Red = evacuate immediately
Orange = high risk, prepare to move
Yellow = potential risk, stay alert
Research shows humans respond faster to visual urgency indicators than to text heavy warnings. - Provide continuous updates, not long paragraphs
Short updates every hour with changing static posts, clear warnings, the cyclone’s expected arrival, rising water levels and real time visuals would keep people engaged and alert without overwhelming them.
Instead, the relevant authorities chose to communicate this urgent and dangerous situation in a sit back and relax tone, failing to convey the seriousness it demanded. In many areas, people were instructed to leave their homes only a couple of hours before the floods hit or the landslides struck and even then the warnings came largely from local communities who had anticipated the danger. State officials did not communicate on the ground.
What goes first matters
The Department of Irrigation issued an early advisory for flood preparedness that was shared by several media outlets. In it the scale of the expected disaster is mentioned but only later in the writeup as though it is not the part requiring urgent attention. The advisory begins with lethargic and highly technical language. “The Department of Irrigation says that the Department of Meteorology has analyzed and forecast a developing low-pressure system in the vicinity of the South Andaman Sea, along with its potential intensification over the coming days, and the associated impacts…” (2)
How many Sri Lankans would read this to the end given the average person’s low attention span? Even if they did, the urgency is not highlighted until much later, which completely minimises the seriousness of the situation.
The correct approach is to begin with the urgency, for example, “The Met Department warns of a substantial risk of flooding in areas in the Central Province, North Central Province, Uva Province and surrounding low lying regions. Therefore, residents in the following locations are instructed to move immediately to higher ground, secure essential belongings and contact local Grama Niladhari offices, police stations or disaster management authorities for assistance.” (The geographical locations are only an example.)
The title, early advisory for flood preparedness, issued is passive and laid back. If the situation is truly urgent and you want people to take immediate action, the title should convey urgency and prompt action, for example, “Severe Flood Warning – Residents Must Evacuate Immediately” or “Extreme Flood Threat – Follow Evacuation Instructions Immediately.”
The relevant authorities have failed the general public on multiple levels. Negligence of state institutions is evident: authorities did not take timely action even after receiving intelligence about the storm and the expected magnitude of rainfall. Unplanned infrastructure projects such as constructing massive dams without considering the consequences for surrounding communities only added to the risk.
But what concerns me most, as someone whose interest lies in communication, is how abysmal our communication system was during this tragic period. It is astonishing that we have not even implemented the basic principles of communication that are crucial for delivering a message, especially one of such life or death seriousness.
We have no excuse
We are a country that invests heavily in communication during elections. Every nuance is carefully crafted to ensure that our electoral message reaches even the most remote villages. Our language is clear and persuasive, our tone vibrant and our delivery powerful and dynamic. We use technology to its fullest potential, ensuring that all mediums and modes such as videos, static posts, radio broadcasts, SMS alerts, social media stories and infographics are leveraged to reach the widest possible audience. All of this is done to win power. So what excuse do we have for not applying the same effort and expertise to use that power to save lives?
We have now lost so many lives; hundreds of families have been stripped of their dreams after spending a lifetime building them, parents are left to mourn their dead children, children are orphaned and left to grieve their dead parents, the economy has been further destabilised, people are traumatised and the devastating effects are yet to manifest. In short we have failed. To know that much of this could have been at least minimised if only the urgency and seriousness of the situation had been communicated properly, allowing people to evacuate in time and move to safer locations breaks my heart. I hope this will never happen again. And I hope that is more than just a hope.
