Follow the Green Trail

Written By Steven Sierra Alcabes

Understanding Bias and How Vendors Benefit from Poor Journalism

Dr. Steven Sierra Alcabes, LSS MBB

10 August 10, 2025

In today’s hyper-connected information landscape, sensational headlines and dire warnings are often not just accidental by-products of news reporting, they can be calculated tools. Media outlets and vendors alike have learned that fear sells, tapping into our psychological biases to capture attention and wallets. The phrase “follow the money” has long guided investigative journalism to uncover corruption; in the context of media bias and vendor influence, we might call it following the “green trail”, tracing the flow of dollars behind alarming headlines to reveal who benefits financially from the narrative. This article examines how profit motives can fuel biased or poor journalism through fear-mongering and other tactics, and how such practices can lead to bad decisions, financial losses, and even endanger lives. It also explores how independent research and a healthy skepticism can empower decision-makers to see beyond the hype. The goal is to inspire enterprise leaders and everyday readers alike to critically evaluate sensational claims by identifying conflicts of interest that may be driving them.

Profit Motives and Media Sensationalism

Modern journalism often struggles with a conflict between reporting objectively and attracting audiences in a competitive, profit-driven industry. Research shows that news organizations sometimes exploit the audience’s negativity bias, our innate tendency to pay more attention to negative information, in order to maximize clicks, views, and ad revenue (Dubner, 2021). For example, a comprehensive analysis of COVID-19 news found an overwhelming 91% of major U.S. media stories were negative in tone, far higher than international media or scientific journals, even when facts were improving (Sacerdote, Sehgal, & Cook, 2020). This “if it bleeds, it leads” approach suggests that media outlets accentuate threats and bad news because doom and gloom draw eyeballs. Audiences have taken notice of these patterns. In interviews, many news consumers report a belief that news companies prioritize profit over accuracy, leading them to view coverage with skepticism (Nelson, Lewis, & Cowley, 2024). In other words, the public increasingly suspects that economic incentives, chasing advertising dollars or subscriber growth, skew the news toward sensationalism and bias. This economic bias can be as corrosive to trust as overt political bias (Nelson et al., 2024). When journalism values attention over truth, it may compromise its integrity by choosing the most dramatic or fear-inducing angle on a story to drive engagement. While strong headlines and provocative stories can boost short-term traffic, they also distort the audience’s understanding of risks and issues, priming people to make decisions based on fear rather than facts.

One reason fear-based content is so prevalent is that it works, at least in the short term, to captivate audiences. Psychological studies have long shown that fear is a powerful motivator that grabs our attention and spurs action. Negative or alarming information triggers stress responses, making us more vigilant. From a business standpoint, this means higher ratings, more page views, and ultimately more advertising revenue for media that push fear-laden narratives (Dubner, 2021). But there is a dangerous flip side: decisions made under the influence of fear tend to be reactive and less rational. Constant exposure to worst-case scenarios can skew our risk perceptions and crowd out balanced information (George et al., 2023). Thus, while sensational media and poor journalism can yield financial gains for those peddling panic, they often do so at the expense of public understanding and sound decision-making.

Fear as a Marketing Tactic, “FUD” and Vendor Hype

Outside of newsrooms, vendors and companies have mastered the art of fear-based marketing to drive sales. In the technology and security sectors especially, the tactic of FUD, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, is a well-known strategy for influencing perception by spreading negative or alarming information (Hauser, 2025). The goal is simple: scare your target audience just enough that they feel compelled to seek safety in your product or service. Vendors leverage the “appeal to fear” by highlighting worst-case outcomes and emphasizing the urgency of threats (Jacobson, 2025). For instance, cybersecurity companies often advertise with dire warnings like “Hackers are coming for your data!” or “Only our advanced solution can protect you”, implicitly blaming the viewer, “it’s your fault if you get breached”, to create a sense of panic and necessity (Jacobson, 2025). This deliberate alarmism is designed to “literally scare up custom”, to spook potential customers into buying security products (Axworthy, 2023). Smaller or newer vendors, eager to break into the market, are especially prone to exaggerating threats in flashy marketing campaigns (Axworthy, 2023). They may publish dramatic “research reports” about newly discovered vulnerabilities or brewing crises, which are often nothing more than thinly veiled sales pitches for the solution they just happen to sell.

Such practices were on full display during the early COVID-19 pandemic when remote work surged. A flood of vendor-sponsored reports and press releases warned organizations about a supposed explosion in sophisticated cyber-attacks like ransomware, urging immediate, proactive purchases of certain protections (Axworthy, 2023). Many corporate IT leaders were bombarded with buzzwords about unprecedented vulnerabilities and told their networks were dangerously exposed, unless they acted fast (Axworthy, 2023). Yet independent data painted a different picture: in the UK, actual surveys showed ransomware accounted for only about 7% of cyber incidents in that period, far less prevalent than phishing or simpler scams (Axworthy, 2023). This disparity suggests that some vendors were hyping up a particular threat (“winged ninja cyber monkeys” as one expert quipped) to induce a fear response out of proportion to the real likelihood (Axworthy, 2023). As Dr. Ian Levy of the UK National Cyber Security Centre observed, vendors are financially “incentivized to make threats sound as scary as possible because they want you to buy their magic amulets”, their proprietary fixes (Axworthy, 2023). In plainer terms, the scarier the problem appears, the more attractive the vendor’s solution becomes. This can lead to “panic-buy” behavior, where organizations procure expensive tools in haste, only to realize later that the hyped threat was no greater than ordinary risks (Axworthy, 2023).

The FUD model is not unique to cybersecurity. Across industries, companies sometimes promote “purely artificial problems” or extreme worst-case scenarios, then market their product as the hero to save customers from that fear (Hauser, 2025). We see it in consumer product ads that play on health anxieties, or financial services using fear of economic collapse to sell investment schemes. The tactic can be effective in the short term, but it carries long-term downsides. If the promised disasters fail to materialize, customers eventually lose trust in those alarmist messages, a “cry wolf” effect (Axworthy, 2023). In technology sales, experts note that repeated over-hyping of threats can breed a “numbness” or apathy among decision-makers, who may start to ignore security warnings altogether (Axworthy, 2023). This ironic outcome of FUD marketing is that by overloading people with fear, it might actually make them less responsive to real dangers. Cybersecurity consultant Roger Grimes warned that companies who chase every new frightening headline risk focusing on “the wrong details” and could miss genuine threats that don’t get the same hype (Axworthy, 2023). In the long run, vendors that consistently “sell snake oil” and play on fear erode overall trust in their industry, unfairly tarnishing even those vendors who do not indulge in such tactics (Axworthy, 2023).

Conflicts of Interest and Poor Journalism

The line between marketing and journalism can blur when news outlets regurgitate vendor narratives uncritically. Poor journalism, whether due to inadequate fact-checking, lack of expertise, or willful sensationalism, can act as a force multiplier for fear-based marketing. Vendors often seek out media coverage for their alarmist reports knowing that a headline in a reputable news site can lend credibility to what is essentially a PR piece. For example, a security firm’s press release claiming “a 300% rise in cyber-attacks” might get picked up by technology news bloggers or even mainstream outlets, especially if the claim is attention-grabbing. If journalists do not scrutinize the methodology or possible self-serving angle behind such vendor-sponsored studies, the vendor’s message is broadcast to a far wider audience under the guise of objective news. In these cases, the vendor benefits from what is effectively free advertising and fear-mongering on a mass scale, while the public receives a skewed view of the issue.

Issues of conflict of interest arise when the financial or sponsorship ties behind information are hidden. A key principle in journalism ethics is transparency: readers should know if an “expert” quoted in a story or a research finding comes from a source with a vested interest. Good journalists are trained to “always ask, ‘Who is paying their bills?’” when dealing with outside organizations or experts (Hull, 2020). As veteran reporter Bryson Hull (2020) explains, “follow the money” means that the funding trail usually reveals the underlying agenda of a source, be it a company, a think-tank, or even a non-profit. No organization is completely immune to the influence of its funders or financial goals. For instance, an ostensibly independent cybersecurity “institute” that rings alarm bells about a new threat might in fact be funded by vendors selling the very solution to that threat. If a news article fails to disclose that connection, readers are left unaware that the institute’s dire warnings may be economically motivated advocacy rather than neutral analysis.

Historically, there have been blatant examples of such conflicts. Hull (2020) notes that even non-profits or NGOs can have agendas shaped by who bankrolls them, encapsulated in the adage: “He who has the gold, rules.” In journalism, this means reporters should identify an organization not just by its presented noble mission, but also by any political or commercial leanings stemming from its funding. A responsible news piece might introduce an analyst as, for example, “Jane Doe, who heads a cybersecurity lab funded by industry groups”, so the audience can weigh that context. Unfortunately, not all outlets uphold this standard. Poor journalism might simply cite sensational findings without digging deeper, inadvertently acting as a mouthpiece for the vendor’s marketing. In the early 2000s, it was discovered that some financial services firms were commissioning biased studies to promote their products; the resulting “research” was passed off in media reports until regulators intervened, requiring clear disclosures of conflicts of interest (Axworthy, 2023). This shows that without checks and transparency, marketing materials can masquerade as news, misleading even savvy consumers.

The situation is compounded by the pressure on media companies themselves to generate revenue. Cash-strapped news organizations may be tempted by “sponsored content” that blurs editorial and advertising lines, for instance, a tech vendor pays for a special “report” in a magazine, which looks like regular journalism but subtly pushes the vendor’s perspective. If done without clear labeling, readers may not realize they are reading paid promotions. Even apart from formal advertising, the chase for clicks can lead media to emphasize stories that align with popular fear narratives, since they know those will be widely shared. In some cases, a symbiotic relationship develops: vendors supply dramatic stories or statistics, and media amplify them for traffic, with both sides benefiting financially. The loser, unfortunately, is the truth, and the reader looking for unbiased information.

To guard against this, media literacy experts and ethical journalists recommend a form of investigative reflex for readers: trace the green trail behind any extraordinary claim. Ask questions like: Who might benefit if I believe this claim?, Is the source of this information independent or on someone’s payroll?, and Are there sponsorships or advertisements linked to this story’s topic? Answering these questions can often reveal potential bias. If a catastrophic health study splashed across headlines is funded by a pharmaceutical company that stands to gain from the panic, that doesn’t automatically disprove the study, but it warrants extra scrutiny of the findings. Independent research is crucial at this juncture, looking up multiple sources, especially primary research or trusted independent experts, to see if the sensational story holds water when removed from the original sponsor’s spin. By effectively following the green trail in everyday news consumption, readers can identify when poor journalism might be feeding them a financially motivated narrative in the cloak of objective reporting.

The Real-World Consequences of Fear-Mongering

The use of fear in media and marketing isn’t just an abstract ethical concern, it has tangible, and sometimes dire, consequences. When decision-makers base choices on sensationalized information or one-sided, fear-driven reporting, the outcomes are often suboptimal or even dangerous. On the business front, executives may misallocate resources, invest in the wrong solutions, or delay important action due to distorted risk perceptions. For example, a company overwhelmed by vendor hype about a fringe threat might pour millions into a supposed “silver bullet” tool, while neglecting basic safeguards against far more common risks. This ineffective decision-making can leave the organization less secure despite higher spending. Professor Doug Jacobson (2025) describes this paradox in cybersecurity: scare-tactic marketing convinces users that security is too complex to handle, leading them to rely blindly on vendor products. Over time, they become helpless and apathetic, even ignoring simple best practices, which “ironically makes them more vulnerable” (Jacobson, 2025). In this way, fear-based marketing can create a vicious cycle, users feel less capable and more fearful, which drives them to buy more tools, which in turn further entrenches the narrative that only paid solutions (not personal vigilance) can provide safety (Jacobson, 2025). The net effect is wasted budget, fragmentation of defenses, and a false sense of security that can be shattered by a breach the flashy product didn’t prevent.

Fear-mongering can also lead to financial loss on a larger economic scale. Consider how markets react to disinformation and sensational news: a single false tweet about a terror attack wiped out $136 billion in stock value in minutes, before the hoax was debunked (WEF, 2025). Companies have lost billions due to rumors and fake news that sent investors into panic selling (Serrano, 2025). While not always vendor-driven, these examples underscore how exaggerated fear in media directly translates to economic damage, be it through poor corporate decisions or spooked markets. Vendors capitalizing on fear may profit individually, but if their tactics contribute to a climate of constant panic, overall business confidence can erode. Additionally, organizations that repeatedly fall for hyped threats may find themselves chasing fads and incurring “solution fatigue”, investing in a parade of new tools or interventions that underdeliver. The opportunity cost of these choices is significant: money and attention spent on the wrong problems mean neglecting the right ones. In cybersecurity, for instance, chasing an implausible Hollywood-style threat could mean failing to patch a known vulnerability that ends up being the real cause of a breach.

Worst of all, fear-mongering and misinformation can cost human lives. Consider large-scale hurricane evacuations, where alarmist framing and rumor can trigger “shadow evacuations”, people outside mandatory zones who flee anyway, overloading roads and emergency services. Decades of evacuation research shows that such fear-driven behavior increases congestion, slows protective actions for those most at risk, and elevates indirect mortality (Lindell & Perry, 2012; Dow & Cutter, 2002). During Hurricane Rita (2005), Texas experienced one of the largest evacuations in U.S. history. Preliminary state data recorded 118 deaths connected to the event, with news reports linking at least 60 to the evacuation itself; a tragic motorcoach fire killed 23 nursing-home evacuees, and heat exposure on gridlocked highways claimed additional lives (Texas House Research Organization, 2006; National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], 2007). NOAA’s post-event assessment similarly documented seven direct deaths and at least 55 indirect deaths in Texas, including heat-related fatalities and the bus accident, illustrating how poorly calibrated, fear-amplified evacuations can become life-threatening in their own right (National Hurricane Center, 2006).

Even in governance and disaster response, fear-driven narratives can kill. A peer-reviewed synthesis of the Rita experience concluded that “the evacuation itself led to over 100 of the at least 119 deaths attributed to the storm,” with cascading breakdowns, from fuel availability to traffic management, magnified by mass flight untethered to actual risk (Baker, 2018, p. 115). The lesson is not to downplay hazards but to resist one-note alarmism and instead apply staged, evidence-based warnings that align threat, timing, and capacity (Baker, 2018; Lindell & Perry, 2012). Across other policy domains, critics likewise argue that extreme, single-frame rhetoric can push leaders toward expensive “wrong solutions” that misallocate resources and create new harms, underscoring why measured, analytic communication matters as much as decisive action (Lomborg, 2023).

In summary, the dangers of fear-mongering media and poor journalism are multi-fold: bad decisions, wasted finances, eroded trust, and in the gravest cases, loss of life. Fear might be an effective sales technique or ratings booster in the moment, but when it distorts reality, the decisions based on that distortion can lead to disaster. Recognizing these stakes underscores why it is so important for readers and decision-makers to pierce through bias and identify what is real versus what is a manufactured scare.

Seeing Beyond the Hype: Independent Research and the “Green Trail”

If fear and bias in media are often financially motivated, then following the “green trail”, tracking the money, is a crucial skill for anyone seeking the truth. Independent research is the antidote to both vendor hype and poor journalism. Rather than taking any alarming headline or bold claim at face value, one should approach it with curiosity and a bit of skepticism: Who is behind this information, and what do they stand to gain? Embracing this mindset transforms the reader from a passive consumer of news to an active investigator of it. Here are some strategies to help see beyond the hype and make fully informed decisions:

  • Examine the Source and Funding: Check who authored the article or study and who funds their work. If a report warning about a new crisis is sponsored by a company selling solutions to that crisis, factor that into your evaluation (Hull, 2020). Follow the green trail by researching the affiliations of experts quoted in the piece. Truly independent experts (academics, non-profit analysts) are more likely to provide unbiased perspectives than those on a vendor’s payroll. Good journalism will often state these affiliations; if it doesn’t, do a quick search yourself. Knowing “who pays whom” can instantly illuminate potential biases.

  • Look for Corroboration: Don’t rely on a single source, especially if it’s sensational. Seek out confirmation from multiple reputable sources. If a headline claims “New Study Reveals Catastrophic Risk,” find the actual study or at least a detailed summary from a neutral party. Often, you will discover that the original findings are more nuanced than the dramatic coverage implies. Cross-check statistics with official data or scientific consensus. Independent research might involve reading a relevant white paper, a government report, or an analysis by a trusted industry group that does not have a commercial product at stake.

  • Identify Emotional Language and Logical Gaps: Pay attention to the language used. Fear-mongering articles typically use emotive, extreme terms and may present worst-case scenarios as likely outcomes. They might cherry-pick anecdotes that provoke anxiety while ignoring context. If an article makes you feel a surge of fear or panic, that’s a cue to step back and apply critical thinking. Ask: What is the evidence for this claim? Are they presenting data or just frightening predictions? Be wary of content that urges immediate action or portrays a situation as a foregone disaster without acknowledging uncertainty or alternative views. Responsible reporting, even on serious issues, will maintain a factual tone and avoid hyperbole.

  • Check for Conflicts of Interest Disclosures: In quality journalism and academic writing, it’s standard to disclose conflicts of interest. If you’re reading an article about a medical breakthrough, see if it notes funding sources (e.g., a pharmaceutical company). If a cybersecurity blog extols a specific product, see if the site is owned by or paid by that product’s vendor. Lack of disclosure where you would expect one is a red flag. It could mean the piece is advertising in disguise. On the other hand, when conflicts are disclosed, weigh the information with that in mind rather than discarding it outright. The key is being aware of potential biasing factors.

  • Leverage Expert Communities and Peer Review: One advantage of the internet age is that you can often find expert discussions on almost any claim. If a sensational claim is making rounds, chances are subject-matter experts are debunking or contextualizing it in forums, social media, or response articles. For enterprise decision-makers, industry associations and independent consultants can provide a sober second opinion on vendor claims. Academic research, with its peer-review process, is also a gold standard for objective analysis, look for meta-analyses or consensus statements on the topic at hand. These sources might not be as “sexy” as a screaming headline, but they will help ground your decisions in evidence rather than excitement.

  • Reflect on Cui Bono (Who Benefits): This timeless principle from Roman times remains apt. For any piece of alarming information, ask “Who benefits?” If the answer points to a particular organization, person, or industry, that doesn’t automatically invalidate the information, but it does suggest a need for caution. Sometimes the beneficiary is not obvious, for example, fear-based content might simply benefit the publisher through ad revenue from higher traffic (a more diffuse motive). But identifying the beneficiary focuses your mind on the possible motive. It encourages a healthy skepticism, which is central to independent investigation.

By applying these practices, individuals and especially enterprise leaders can avoid falling prey to fear-fueled biases. Instead of making knee-jerk choices based on a single bombastic article or a vendor’s apocalyptic sales pitch, they can assemble a full picture from independent, diverse sources. This often reveals a more moderate reality and a more measured range of responses. Decisions made on this solid foundation are likely to be more effective, cost-efficient, and aligned with actual priorities, rather than whims of the news cycle or marketing fad. In the realm of cybersecurity, for instance, a CISO (Chief Information Security Officer) who investigates a sensational threat report may find that improving basic staff training addresses the described risk just as well as an expensive new gadget, a conclusion that saves money and truly reduces risk.

Finally, independent research nurtures a mindset of continuous learning and critical awareness. Over time, consistently following the green trail builds intuition. One becomes quicker at spotting dubious claims and more confident in challenging them. This is empowering; it returns the locus of control to the decision-maker or reader. Instead of being buffeted by each new wave of hype or fear, an organization or individual can chart a steady course guided by facts, values, and thoughtful analysis.

Conclusion

Sensationalism, fear-mongering, and hidden biases in media and marketing thrive where there is complacency and unquestioning trust. “Follow the Green Trail” is a call to action to reclaim that trust through diligence and skepticism. By understanding how bias can creep in through financial incentives, how vendors may benefit from stoking fear and how poor journalism may play along for profit, we equip ourselves to navigate information critically. The stakes are high: our decisions, from boardrooms to personal health choices, hinge on the quality of information we use. If that information is skewed by someone’s gain, our choices can lead us astray, sometimes with grave consequences.

The encouraging news is that the power to overcome these manipulations lies largely with us as consumers of information. By rigorously applying independent research and asking the tough questions about who is influencing the narrative, we effectively shine a light on those green trails of money and motive. In doing so, we demystify the scare tactics and see issues in their true light. This does not mean dismissing every warning as false, rather, it means validating which warnings are real and which are exaggerations. It means distinguishing between prudent caution and manufactured panic.

Ultimately, bias fueled by financial gain can only prevail if we fail to scrutinize it. The more readers and decision-makers that choose to investigate, fact-check, and think for themselves, the harder it becomes for bad actors or biased outlets to mislead. In an enterprise context, leaders who base strategies on comprehensive, objective analyses will likely outperform those reacting to each provocative headline or vendor pitch. And on a societal level, a citizenry that insists on evidence over hysteria will make wiser collective choices, whether it’s in responding to a public health crisis, addressing security threats, or allocating resources to problems that truly matter.

Let us therefore reject the culture of fear for fear’s sake. The next time a headline screams or a salesman promises that only immediate action (and purchase) can save the day, take a moment to follow the green trail and gather independent insight. By doing so, we not only protect ourselves from being manipulated, but we also foster a media environment that rewards truth over trepidation. In an age of information overload, clarity and truth are hard-won prizes, but with diligent research and awareness of bias, they are within everyone’s reach. Following the green trail may just lead us to better journalism, better decisions, and a less fearful world.

References

Axworthy, J. (2023, August 24). How the cybersecurity sector could shake off its reputation for fearmongering. Raconteur. https://www.raconteur.net/technology/time-for-cybersecurity-to-stop-selling-fear

Baker, K. (2018). Reflection on lessons learned: An analysis of the adverse outcomes observed during the Hurricane Rita evacuation. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 12(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2017.27

Dubner, S. J. (2021, June 10). Why is U.S. media so negative? Freakonomics Radio. https://freakonomics.com/podcast/media-negativity/

Dow, K., & Cutter, S. L. (2002). Emerging hurricane evacuation issues: Hurricane Floyd and South Carolina. Natural Hazards Review, 3(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2002)3:1(12)

George, M. F., Rosenberg, B. D., Dale, S. N., Kirkland, L. H., Culross, P. L., & Chen, R. (2023). “They’ll take a gun to me before I get that shot”: Rationalization, emotions, and misinformation in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(9), e12815. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12815

Hauser, E. (2025). Fighting back against fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). Building Energy Resilience. https://buildingenergy.cx-associates.com/fighting-back-against-fear-uncertainty-and-doubt-fud

Hull, B. (2020, December 16). Even NGOs can have political leanings. So, follow the money. News Decoder. https://news-decoder.com/even-ngos-can-have-political-leanings-so-follow-the-money/

Jacobson, D. (2025, January 7). Selling fear: Marketing for cybersecurity products often leaves consumers less secure. Iowa State University Research News. https://research.iastate.edu/2025/01/07/selling-fear-marketing-for-cybersecurity-products-often-leaves-consumers-less-secure/

Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012). The protective action decision model: Theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis, 32(4), 616–632. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x

Lomborg, B. (2023, August 9). Let us make the world better and stop the fear-mongering. The Jordan Times. https://jordantimes.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg/let-us-make-world-better-and-stop-fear-mongering

National Hurricane Center. (2006). Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Rita (AL182005). https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL182005_Rita.pdf

National Transportation Safety Board. (2007). Motorcoach fire on Interstate 45 during Hurricane Rita evacuation near Wilmer, Texas, September 23, 2005 (NTSB/HAR-07/01). https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR0701.pdf

Nelson, J. L., Lewis, S. C., & Cowley, B. (2024). “Money is the root of all evil”: How the business of journalism shapes trust in news. Journalism, 26(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241246929

Sacerdote, B., Sehgal, R., & Cook, M. (2020). Why is all COVID-19 news bad news? (NBER Working Paper No. 28110). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28110

Serrano, J. (2025, July 14). What’s the real cost of disinformation for corporations? World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/financial-impact-of-disinformation-on-corporations/

Texas House of Representatives, House Research Organization. (2006, February 14). Evacuation planning in Texas: Before and after Hurricane Rita (Interim News No. 79-2). https://hro.house.texas.gov/interim/int79-2.pdf

 

Steven Sierra Alcabes, DBA, MPH, PMP, LSSMBB, serves as Process Engineering Officer for the City of Midland, Texas, where he scales Lean Six Sigma and AI-enabled process improvements to reduce waste, strengthen compliance, and improve resident experience. Previously a U.S. Air Force Public Health Director and U.S. Army risk management advisor, he brings a mission-driven approach to municipal transformation, focusing on measurable impact, fiscal stewardship, and ethical technology use. Steven’s forthcoming book, AI for Municipal Operations, translates complex methods into practical playbooks for city leaders. He mentors junior Lean Six Sigma practitioners, develops SOP frameworks, and advises on AI governance that preserves transparency and public trust.

Views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the City of Midland.

Steven Sierra Alcabes https://CivAIgentics.io