Comments
THE BOTTOM LINE - In times of crisis, the public deserves clarity, urgency, and unfiltered truth. Instead, newly revealed internal emails regarding the Palisades Fire response suggest a troubling shift: political messaging may have taken precedence over transparency. According to the correspondence, Mayor Karen Bass’s office assumed direct control over public communications after language in a fire response report was softened before release. If accurate, this raises serious concerns about whether public safety information was shaped to manage optics rather than inform residents.
This issue is not about authorship of a press statement; it is about control of the narrative during a public safety emergency. Fire incidents in Los Angeles are life-safety events that require precise, timely, and operationally grounded communication. Residents rely on accurate information to make decisions about evacuation, safety, and preparedness. When messaging is filtered through political considerations, transparency becomes collateral damage.
Reports that the original after-action language was diluted before public release raise urgent questions that demand answers. Who ordered the changes, and what operational concerns were softened or removed? Were fire command staff and emergency management professionals in agreement with the revisions? Why was centralized mayoral control of messaging deemed necessary in the midst of an active public safety response? Most importantly, did the revised communication fully reflect the operational realities on the ground?
This is not a partisan matter; it is an accountability issue. Los Angeles has faced mounting concerns about emergency readiness, from wildfire mitigation and brush clearance enforcement to interagency coordination during extreme wind and heat events. Public confidence depends on honest assessments, even when those assessments expose shortcomings. When reports are softened for public consumption, the opportunity to learn from mistakes and strengthen preparedness is weakened.
After-action reports exist to identify gaps, improve coordination, and prevent future failures. Altering their tone or findings to reduce political fallout may protect reputations in the short term, but it undermines operational readiness in the long term. Emergency response systems improve only when weaknesses are acknowledged and addressed directly. Transparency is not an embarrassment to be avoided; it is the foundation of continuous improvement.
Emergency communication is not merely informational it is operational. Clear, accurate messaging determines whether residents evacuate in time, whether agencies coordinate effectively, and whether public trust remains intact during life-threatening events. When information is perceived as filtered or incomplete, compliance declines and confusion rises. In wildfire-prone regions like Los Angeles, where minutes can determine outcomes, transparency is not optional; it is a critical component of public safety infrastructure.
Equally concerning is the consolidation of crisis communications under political control. During emergencies, messaging must be timely, technically accurate, and led by subject-matter experts. Political leadership plays an important role in public reassurance and resource mobilization, but when operational messaging is tightly managed at the political level, it raises legitimate concerns that transparency may be subordinated to narrative management.
This moment calls for clarity, not defensiveness. The public deserves release of the original report language alongside the edited version, a clear explanation of who directed the revisions, and assurances that future emergency communications will prioritize operational accuracy over political sensitivity. An independent review of fire response communication protocols would help restore confidence and ensure that public safety messaging remains grounded in fact.
Los Angeles faces escalating wildfire risk, climate volatility, and increasing strain on emergency resources. Trust is not a luxury in this environment; it is an operational necessity. Residents must believe that when danger arises, the information they receive is complete, timely, and focused solely on their safety.
When messaging control supersedes transparency, trust erodes and when trust erodes, public safety is diminished.
Crisis response must never be about protecting political narratives.
It must always be about protecting people.
(Mihran Kalaydjian is a seasoned public affairs and government relations professional with more than twenty years of experience in legislative affairs, public policy, community relations, and strategic communications. A respected civic leader and education advocate, he has spearheaded numerous academic and community initiatives, shaping dialogue and driving reform in local and regional political forums. His career reflects a steadfast commitment to transparency, accountability, and public service across Los Angeles and beyond.)
