Information needs to be interpreted, and even apparently very detailed information might not contain what the decision makers in a crisis situation need. Some years ago, an earthquake of moderate strength occurred near a big city in North Africa. Almost immediately, the international TV news channels showed pictures of some partially collapsed buildings. Several European countries alerted their national search and rescue teams for immediate deployment to the site of the earthquake: The images seemed to indicate that large numbers of big buildings had collapsed, and consequently the number of search and rescue teams available in the affected country would not be sufficient to search all these sites.

The United Nations office for the coordination of humanitarian affairs contacted UN offices in the affected city, and learned that the earthquake had been felt, but that no major damage or casualties were reported. Closer observation of the TV news images indirectly confirmed this finding: What was shown were views, taken from different angles, but always of the same two buildings - both of them actually still under construction. No major damage had occurred to any inhabited buildings.

Lesson learned: In their effort to provide the most dramatic pictures in the shortest possible time, the media had distributed what images they could get hold of. A TV crew, working by coincidence not far from the only two buildings affected by the seismic event, provided the world with an information, which almost resulted in unnecessary and potentially very expensive mobilization of international assistance. They did their job; they produced the dramatic pictures wanted by the media for which they worked, but not the information needed by the potential responders.