On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Wesley McGee <[email protected]>wrote:
> Earlier this week, the fear was that the storm would still be a category 2 > or 3 when it reached Long Island and be moving a bit slower, too. > Fortunately for all, it weakened slightly and may just barely be a category > 1 hurricane at LI. I figure that also reduces the severity of any storm > surge. By now, you know I live near DC and thus right now I'm in the midst > of the fringe edge of the storm. It's pretty good winds, but nothing I > haven't experienced with Isabel. > > Now, there is some criticism that maybe The Weather Channel, usually a > somewhat sober channel, has been a tad sensational (though again, the > earlier forecasts were for a category 3-4 to hit NC, still be a category 3 > off the Delmarva and at 2-3 in LI, as opposed to it weakening just before NC > landfall). > > http://j.mp/o8n6m9 > I have to be honest, aside from Katrina I have not followed too closely the national coverages of Hurricanes in the past - it always seems so far removed from me. I do of course monitor the headlines regularly to see how things are going, but almost never have I just sat and watched the coverage for several continuous hours. Selfishly, now, of the 1.5 million or or so people in Manhattan and tens of millions in Irene's path, there is one person in particular that I am focusing on, so I have found myself watching CNN's hurricane coverage for long periods at a time (have also checked in with MSNBC and the WC). Wow - this kind of coverage is not very good. I was thinking I might come away saying something like: "the cable news networks suck at covering international affairs and domestic politics, but when it comes down to serious, practical events like hurricanes, they really prove their value". No. They seem to be almost (granted, not quite) as self-serving and sensational with Hurricane coverage as they are with anything else. Last night I actually saw one reporter on CNN tease a report by saying something like: "Joe in North Carolina has some vital information for us about Irene that just might save your life" [cut to an image of Joe in his weather suit for a second then] "we will get you right to that, after this". When they finally come back to Joe, he only tells us stuff that we have heard from three or four other people in the last hour. And they hype the hell out of the most dramatic projections, without putting it at all into context. Pierce what's his name last night kept repeating the most extreme projections of how much flooding there would be in NYC (even though we had heard the expert who gave that extreme projection put all kinds of qualifiers and probability parameters around it - on his very own show). He asked another expert a question based on the max estimate, and the expert spent most of his time explaining why the max projection, while possible, was unlikely - and then spent the rest of his time saying that, while the more likely amount of flooding was less extreme and dramatic, there were still a few important things to keep in mind. Rather than focus on these few, more important and likely considerations, Pierce starts his first question to the next expert predicated on the same max projection that we have now heard two experts tell us was unlikely. He also decided that his go to question of the night was going to be, "If you were in Manhattan right now, would you stay"? This even though we had been hearing all day that most of Manhattan was not in any evacuation zone, and that only low lying and coastal areas were at real risk. But he did not even nuance the question that much - just asked everyone "you live in NYC - would you stay there tonight?". The people who lived in low lying areas (it looked like one person lived near Battery Park" said something like "no - they have already evacuated me, so I can't stay at home". While others said "of course, I have not been evacuated, so I am going to stay home". All of this kind of freaked me out, but the more I watched the coverage, and monitored various internet sources, the more I noticed how much the TV reports were sensationalizing and inflating their coverage - I guess to hook suckers like me into watching them. It has the effect of decreasing my confidence in anything they report - and it also has the effect of overshadowing important, even critical information that is less sensational that people in effected areas still need to know. Of course, less likely maximum consequences are still possible, and I don't mind them laying out the hi and lo estimates. But to base their coverage on the hi estimate of damage, and to relentlessly and constantly pump it, is really a disservice. I wish for the says when I had the local NYC channels through the dish so I could just monitor the local news coverage. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
