Editorial Standards Concern in Weathered: After the LA Firestorm
Dear PBS Editorial Standards,
I am writing because Weathered: After the LA Firestorm crosses a clear editorial line: it presents a narrow, insurance-aligned policy framework as settled science while failing to disclose conflicts of interest, evidence limits, and — most concerning — misrepresenting the conclusions of one of the scientists whose work it relies upon most heavily.
This is not a stylistic concern. It is a failure of disclosure, evidence standards, and scientific attribution.
Dave Winnacker is not a neutral expert
In the episode, Dave Winnacker is identified simply as a “retired fire chief.” In reality, he is currently an Assistant Fire Chief in Berkeley and an industry-facing wildfire mitigation consultant whose work centers on proprietary risk modeling, targeted mitigation prioritization, and market-aligned compliance strategies. He is associated with firms such as XyloPlan and has played a direct role in shaping local policy, including Berkeley’s EMBER ordinance — the most restrictive residential fire-hardening law in the state.
None of this context is disclosed to viewers. Instead, Mr. Winnacker is positioned as the documentary’s central authority at three decisive moments:
Declaring suppression futile (“firefighters cannot stop urban firestorms”);
Defining the “baseline” for preparedness (Class A roofs, ember-resistant vents, and mandatory Zone 0); and
Introducing a return-on-investment framework (“critical mass at critical locations,” “greatest potential return on investment”) that mirrors insurance underwriting logic.
This is not incidental commentary. It is policy architecture — presented as neutral science.
“Baseline” language is doing political work
After the IBHS ember-testing footage, viewers are told there are “very simple, very effective steps,” culminating in the declaration that Zone 0 is part of a non-negotiable “baseline.” The episode then closes with the episodes science communicator, Maiya May stating: “The solutions exist.”
At no point does the program disclose that:
Zone 0 is a contested policy proposal with significant ecological, equity, and implementation tradeoffs;
it has not been validated through rigorous post-fire empirical analysis and is being advanced primarily through laboratory simulation and modeled inference;
it is actively promoted by insurance-aligned institutions as a compliance and underwriting mechanism; and
the expert defining it on screen has professional and policy interests in scaling exactly this mitigation regime.
Labeling a policy outcome a “baseline” — while withholding this context — is not neutral reporting. It is advocacy by omission.
The documentary misrepresents Dr. Jack Cohen’s Home Ignition Zone research
The episode relies heavily on Dr. Jack Cohen’s authority and reputation to establish the scientific foundation for its conclusions. However, the way his work is used creates a misleading bridge to Zone 0 that his own research does not support.
Dr. Cohen’s central contribution — which the documentary accurately states — is that wildland–urban fire disasters are a home ignition problem, not a wildfire control problem. His research defines the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) as the home and its immediate surroundings, emphasizing structural vulnerabilities and specific ignition sources, not blanket vegetation removal.
What the episode does not disclose is that Dr. Cohen has been explicit, in both peer-reviewed research and public education materials, that clearing all vegetation within five feet of a structure is not required to reduce ignition risk.
In A More Effective Approach for Preventing Wildland-Urban Fire Disasters, Dr. Cohen states plainly that clearing all vegetation from the HIZ is unnecessary, and documents post-fire observations showing green, unburned vegetation immediately adjacent to destroyed homes, demonstrating that vegetation was not the ignition driver.
In National Fire Protection Association materials such as Your Home Can Survive a Wildfire, Dr. Cohen further explains that healthy, green vegetation without dead material adjacent to a structure and in Zone 0 does not necessarily pose an ignition risk.
Yet After the LA Firestorm uses Cohen’s work to establish ember-driven ignition, it immediately pivots to IBHS laboratory simulations and Mr. Winnacker’s declaration that a five-foot non-combustible perimeter (“Zone 0”) is a non-negotiable baseline.
This is not a neutral progression of evidence. It is a substitution.
Cohen’s field-based, post-fire research is used to legitimize a policy prescription he has never officially endorsed and has explicitly cautioned against when unsupported by site-specific ignition analysis. Viewers are not informed of this divergence.
Lab simulations/experiments are not post-fire science
Equally important, the episode does not distinguish between laboratory simulation evidence and post-fire empirical analysis.
IBHS ember-testing experiments are valuable for understanding ignition mechanisms, but they are not substitutes for systematic after-action studies comparing real-world outcomes across burned communities. Presenting simulation-based inference as outcome-proven science overstates evidentiary certainty and misleads the audience.
The episode explains the real driver — then diverts responsibility
The episode correctly explains that once homes ignite, loss is driven by structure-to-structure exposure, not vegetation:
“When the distance between the structures is shorter than the flame length, we are holding a blowtorch on our homes.”
That statement implicates land-use decisions, building density, siting, and evacuation capacity as first-order variables. Yet the program does not follow this logic into civic accountability. Instead, responsibility is redirected toward individual homeowners through a checklist aligned with insurance certification programs.
The result is a profound reframing: public safety becomes a household compliance problem, enforced by insurance markets.
What accountability looks like
At minimum, PBS should:
acknowledge the nondisclosure of Mr. Winnacker’s professional and policy roles;
clearly distinguish between laboratory simulation findings or experiments and post-fire empirical evidence;
clarify that Zone 0 is a debated policy choice, not a scientifically settled baseline;
and correct the implication that Dr. Jack Cohen’s research supports mandatory vegetation clearance within five feet of structures.
This is not about rejecting fire science or home hardening. It is about refusing to launder a narrow, insurance-compatible policy pathway through the language of inevitability and misattributed scientific authority.
Public trust depends on that distinction.
Because these issues go directly to PBS’s editorial obligations and public trust, I’ve submitted a copy of this comment to the Public Editor, Ricardo Sandoval-Palos.
Profoundly disappointed,
Living in the Fire Zone
What PBS neglected to tell viewers about Dave Winnacker
Owner and principal of XyloPlan, a private wildfire risk modeling and consulting firm that works at the intersection of fire policy, land-use planning, insurance, and development.
Publicly promotes the theory that new, ignition-resistant housing built in fire-prone areas can function as a protective buffer for existing communities.
Co-author of opinion pieces and white papers arguing that development in the WUI is not only inevitable, but can be leveraged as a fire-management strategy if paired with strict vegetation clearance and building hardening.
In March 2025, came out of retirement to take a role with the Berkeley Fire Department, where he became a leading advocate for the EMBER ordinance.
EMBER requires extensive vegetation removal and construction hardening around hundreds of existing homes in Berkeley and is widely viewed as a local amplification of Zone 0 principles.
.