Hype-Driven Journalism Fuels Needless Panic and Costs Millions

Portland, Oregon, is not on a fault line, near the ocean, or next to the Cascadia Subduction Zone. It is 90 miles inland and over 170 miles from the nearest part of the famous offshore fault, which runs right under Los Angeles, just off the coast of San Francisco, and more than 100 miles offshore in Oregon.

Still, thousands read almost daily that Portland is the epicenter of “The Big One” earthquake, an event that people assure us will destroy 243 brick buildings downtown, all 13 bridges, and kill tens of thousands of people. Planning for this mythical event has already cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

This idea comes from news stories that use extreme language. These stories shape what people believe, and they also shape the data that AI learns from. AI systems are trained using large numbers of journalistic “fear-based” stories. Because the news exaggerates the risk, AI shares, as a fact, stories based on entirely false premises, which have already led to millions of dollars spent, and billions budgeted. The spending is unnecessary because the event they are planning has never happened and is unlikely to ever happen in the future.

The Problem of Media Hype Feeding AI Training

AI models are trained using data from websites, news, and public reports. When those sources focus on worst-case stories, AI training scoops them up as factual patterns. The inherent exaggeration of news become encapsulated in the AI’s perception of the human world.

As a result, AI-based risk models are becoming inflated. Government planners draw from improperly exaggerated datasets. They produce new reports, which are sensationalized as clickbait by media journalists who engage in an ever more fantastic loop of exaggeration. Suddenly, a 100-foot wave that washed over Tillamook 325 years ago has turned into a 1000-foot wave ravaging downtown Portland.

Homeowners in Portland read every day that huge swathes of the city are doomed to collapse. Insurance companies raise rates based on this data. When journalists write about a massive quake, they rarely mention how distance and ground forces greatly affect the strength of a quake one hundred miles away.

Some call Portland “ground zero.” This term is false and confusing when describing a potential earthquake 200 miles away.

Case 1: The 1700 Quake — Real Science vs. Media Myth

The Cascadia earthquake of 1700 is real. It happened offshore and caused a tsunami in Japan. Scientists have proven the date by looking at tree rings, sediment layers, and Japanese tsunami records. These facts are confirmed in the article on the 1700 Cascadia earthquake. The event is also documented in the USGS analysis of the Cascadia fault.

Although there were no cities like Portland at the time, there were forests. The shaking did not destroy inland forests. It changed a few hundred acres of land near the coast. This land is nearly 100 miles away from Portland, a major metropolitan area covering hundreds of square miles and containing over one million people.

The media uses the 1700 quake to suggest that the event, which is 170 miles from the city, will somehow destroy buildings and lower acreage in the heart of the urban area. They skip the real science. Oregon has already spent billions of dollars planning for unscientific eyeball bait rather than any likely event.

AI reads these articles and treats the worst-case story as the only truth. It repeats the worst case as the only case and fuels the unnecessary cost to taxpayers.

Case 2: Distance and Terrain Are Ignored

The Cascadia Subduction Zone is nearly 100 miles offshore from Oregon, and Portland is 90 miles inland. Portland is on a River at a low elevation, but there are 140 miles of river between Portland and the Ocean, and the earthquake fault is still 100 miles offshore.

That makes Portland nearly 200 miles from the fault. Roughly the distance from Boston to Albany, New York. So, if a 100-foot wave were likely to hit Boston, should Albany, New York, build seawalls and condemn 243 brick buildings? Most people on the East Coast know there is nearly no relation between Boston Harbor events and Albany, a city 140 miles west. Why should Portland, Oregon, be different? Few East Coast journalists have ever been to Oregon or driven the two-hour drive from Portland to the ocean, so they somehow believe events nearly 100 miles offshore will dramatically affect the inland city.

The Oregon State Cascadia risk assessment shows this. The Coast Range mountains, rivers, and an ocean trough are between the city and the Cascadia subduction zone fault line. Earthquake waves lose energy as they move. Soil type, rock layers, and distance all reduce the impact.

Models from the USGS earthquake hazards research show that Portland would feel shaking at Modified Mercalli Intensity level V or VI.

At Mercalli Intensity VI, everyone will feel the shaking, and many will be frightened, potentially running outdoors. Some heavy furniture may move, and a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys may occur. The damage is considered slight. Keep in mind, however, that the City of Portland has condemned 243 brick buildings, for an event where no brick will fall!

News articles call Portland at risk of full destruction. AI sees these stories and treats them as fact. That leads to higher insurance, fear-driven policy, and millions of dollars in residents’ waste due to clickbait based state and city mandates.

Case 3: The Fictional 1,000-Foot Wave

No science supports the idea of a 1,000-foot tsunami. The largest expected wave on the Oregon coast is around 100 feet high, as shown in the Oregon tsunami inundation maps. These waves hit the beach and flood nearby towns.

As horrific as a 100-foot wave may be, anyone who has physically driven over the Oregon Coast Mountain Range will believe an ocean wave will top those heights. Nor is an ocean wave going to wend slowly up the Columbia River, against the current, for the 4.5 hours it would take to lap at the foot of Portland’s seawall. Even the furthest west suburb of Portland is not remotely close to the Oregon coast.

Still, journalists create maps showing wide flooding, imagining an impossible water level rise in the Willamette Valley. Journalists use AI to develop maps to draw eyeballs to some imaginary risk. Portland is far more likely to succumb to the zombie apocalypse (keep Portland weird) than to see some imaginary wave sail in a half day after a strong offshore earthquake.

The maps cause insurance prices to go up. They are used to set building codes. Normal human people begin to believe the hype and form civic policy based on it. The federal tsunami hazard planning resources provide accurate tsunami risk information for inland cities, and Portland is not at risk. So why is there a 1,000-foot wave?

Case 4: Recent Offshore Earthquakes Not Even Felt

In the last few years, several earthquakes have occurred offshore from Oregon. One near Port Orford reached magnitude 6.0. This quake happened in the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which is closer to land in Southern Oregon. Although people only 50 miles away from the actual subduction zone earthquake never felt it, as noted in a report by Mark Nelsen.

That is because it was deep underwater and far from land. It did not cause damage, and there was no tsunami. Yet, headlines still said, “This could be the Big One.” AI training systems pick up these terms and assume every quake in Cascadia is a warning. These systems write reports, price risk, and recommend policies. But they are repeating false warnings based on hype, not fact.

Case 5: The Hidden Cost of Public Policy Based on Media Exaggeration

Portland is not free from risk. But the risk is moderate, not extreme. A strong quake could damage some buildings and cut off power. But people will not need to flee the city. Most homes will be safe.

Still, building owners face government orders to retrofit old structures. Some of these changes cost over ten million dollars for a single building. Insurance companies raise rates due to inflated models. Government plans push emergency spending that does not match the real danger. These outcomes are all based on wrong data. The data is incorrect because journalists, AI systems, and policy writers have all focused on “worst-case” exaggerations rather than “likely-case” science. They have adopted eyeball-bait fiction instead of actual local risk.

Conclusion: Stop Letting Hype Dictate Policy

Portland is far from the Cascadia fault. It is protected by miles of ocean, land, and mountains. Journalists create exaggerations to try to gain clicks. However, policymakers should strive to dig into the facts and make policies based on facts.

With AI doing all the work, the hype will get worse. AI cannot tell the difference because it is trained on tainted data – journalist clickbait reports. News outlets outside of Oregon often write about doom. They do not know the local facts. They do not mention that Portland is 170 miles from the fault.

Does the Wall Street Journal advise that people in Albany, New York, should take action because of conditions in Boston Harbor? They know the area, and they see the distance. Only in far-off Oregon are citizens bombarded with news about events that might happen 200 miles away.

We need to fix this. AI must learn from real science. Journalists must describe likely events. Insurance and government decisions must be based on possible scenarios, not clickbait news. Portland taxpayers should not have to pay the price because journalists far away do not understand the geography and geology of the vast western states.