Is there a risk of ‘alert fatigue’ for missing people?
A story today on STLtoday.com notes that Missouri authorities have started a new system to notify the public and the media about missing people. This system joins the current “Amber Alerts” and “SARAA Alerts” that have been issued for missing children in the past.
The “Endangered Person Advisory” was used in the case of Ben Ownby, who disappeared in early January and was discovered Jan. 12 with Shawn Hornbeck.
The story today says:
The effort is lauded by advocacy groups but viewed with a little hesitation by some who fear overwhelming the public.
In January, the Missouri Highway Patrol created an Endangered Person Advisory to notify news media and local law enforcement. It has been used three times. The first was for a child, William “Ben” Ownby, missing for four days from Franklin County. The initial report of his disappearance did not meet the stricter criteria for a full Amber Alert.
I confess: We see Amber Alerts in the newsroom and wonder if it’s a domestic dispute between two feuding ex-spouses. Do you think there’s a chance that too many advisories will overwhelm us? Is there a risk of a “crying wolf” syndrome?
Kurt is the director of social media for the Post-Dispatch, where he has worked since August 2002. He's been a journalist since 1982, covering municipal government, courts, education and two hurricanes as a reporter before becoming an editor. 
Not really alert fatigue but the “news” sources drone on and on for ten minutes about how the person got into the room and what they duped the victim. They could do a lot more if they would regularly put up a picture of the many missing kids (not just the one deemed important for a news story) and say, “if you have seen this missing child please call 555-5555″ or whatever and move on. But what can you expect from “news” sources that go on and on about celebrity deaths and affairs and such?
Sincerely,
The current system is fine as long as Republicans are not allowed to manipulate the Amber Alerts for personal profit.
Anything can be overdone, whether it’s missing persons reports or severe storm watches. I think the problem with a lot of the missing persons reports is that very few people know the difference between an Amber and a Saraa alert–now we’re going to throw another one into the mix? And just like the storm watches (”Oh, they say that all the time…there won’t be a tornado here”) people tend to blow off a lot of the alerts (”Oh, that happened in Podunk, Missouri–that kid won’t be anywhere around here.”) Well, as the Hornbeck case proved, you can be looking right at the missing person and not notice. And, yes, I can see the public getting blase…especially when cases turn out to be a domestic dispute where one parent snatches the child from the other parent and at no time is the child in danger (unless the parents start shooting at each other in the course of the abduction.)It’s sad, because the alerts have proven valuable in many cases, so I think we need to avoid overkill.
I don’t think you can over do it with public alerts for missing children. I don’t think they should create new alerts so much as expand the criteria for a child to qualify for the current alerts. If you were a parent, and your estranged spouse took your child, would you not want everyone in the country to be on the lookout as well? Just because it’s the kids other parent doesn’t mean that parent isn’t snapping and endangering the child. Just the other week a little girl’s father took her, put her in a Cessna airplane, and killed himself and her by crashing the plane into his ex-mother-inlaw’s house. I don’t believe any parent should have their child’s abduction deemed less important. The bottom line is their child is missing and in danger. Whomever took the child has already proven themselves irrational by taking the child.
I agree with “b” that every child (or impaired adult for that matter) needs to get the attention necessary to locate said individual. Even domestic cases can turn ugly so I didn’t mean to imply that every parent child-snatching is harmless. (I only wanted to point out that this scenario…when the child is not hurt…tends to make the public skeptical.) But I’m thinking that maybe we just need one system with details relevant to that specific case. Obviously an adult with Altzheimers, a child who disappears on the way home from school, and one who is seized by a family member fit different modes of where and when they may be spotted by the public.
Another thought…not about any alert but about subsequent search efforts. That lady whose ATV turned over on her and she was stuck out in the woods with her son all night…. Did anyone catch the point about how she heard the rescuers on their ATVs and called for help but no one heard her because of the racket their own machines were creating? I admit, I never thought of that angle before. But it sure is something to keep in mind…that a foot or horseback search can be more effective in case the missing person is injured and unable to approach the search party. Rescuers may only pass the person once before said person becomes too weak to call out for help again or loses conciousness altogether.
Leaving it on the bottom of the TV screen for two day’s can be bad for a person using closed caption to watch TV. I think it is good to have the service if you have a loved one missing. I also think that it get’s overdone. I use closed caption and it is a mess with all that going on. It also blocks out some of the closed caption sentences.
If you have a loved one that is missing, I am sure it would mean so much to you to know that the community is doing all they can to help.
Also, SB67 has a penality for filing a false report (see full bill). It’s a class A misdemeanor for whatever that means–but some penality that may keep people from filing false reports. Hopefully, Law Enforcement could use some professional descrition also.