(global) failure to communicate: 150,000 and counting

Back in August 2004, I started a semester-long class in Global Communication. One of my first assignments was to tell about myself and also what I thought I might learn in the class. I could tell about myself but was clueless about what global communication might mean. (I had signed up for the class because it is in a series required for my certificate program at UNC-CH's School of Journalism and Mass Communication).

Okay, I wasn't completely clueless-I did know that I could email people across the globe and even carry on a virtual conversation with no extra cost (besides my regular ISP cost). That was cool and valuable from a business perspective (i.e., I could reach a worldwide market at very little cost). Other possibilities didn't really occur to me.

In the class, we explored the good and the bad that global communication, exercised on a regular basis, could bring. Being a pseudo-ambassador for my people (U.S. Southerners) comes to mind as a positive, given sensitivity and some basic understanding of global politics on my part.

I completed the class in early December 2004. What I learned specifically may require review of readings. But I can tell you (without looking!) is that the tsunami tragedy was a preventable one. And the issues/problems that could have prevented this tragedy (not the tsunami itself but the thousands of people who were not warned of the impending wave): 1) lack of a global communication infrastructure (physical) and 2) lack of a global communication chain through which warnings could have traveled from first tremor to an organized mass evacuation of the areas likely to be hit. This warning system, partially in place, missed the mark for tens of thousands of people.

Like it did after the 9/11 attacks, Google has set up a section for information on the tragedy and relief efforts, including this blog that I've linked to.