The following piece is fascinating, in that it highlights how much personal communication allows us to react far more effectively than we might if we waited for "official" news.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/start.html?pg=3

The impact of this is profound and seriously calls into question the government's appropriate role in managing emergencies. In fact, in a larger sense it calls into account the government's ability to control communication or action in any situation. The truth as relayed by thousands of individual interacting with each other is apparently far more powerful than any official word.

But in truth, there should be no surprise in this. In the fities, and even on into the sixties, the US government grappled with how to handle communications in the event of a nuclear attack on the US. The original plan called for communication by TV and radio, using a "highly trusted" newsman to deliver the message and issue instructions about evactuation and shelter procedures.

The plans never went far. Planners realized that people wouldn't be listening, they'd be panicing and trying to make their own way.

By 2001, the problem of panic disappeared. Inherent in the concept of panic is the idea that you don't know what's going on, and thus react unpredictably. In today's world, personal communication technology increasingly means that you won't be in a situation where you don't know what's going on. More often than not, you'll know as much as anybody, and possibly more than the officials far away. Panic is replaced by "reasoned flight." We take on the logic of a swarm of bees or of an open marketplace, with no clear leader, but nonetheless with a common direction and ability to adjust in real-time to new developments.

-btc