On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:46 PM, donz5 <[email protected]> wrote: > (SNIP) Also, I liked how some of the > on-the-scene reporters adjusted in their performances: When they were > on MSNBC, they evoked formal, serious; but on WNBC, they came across > as familiar, friendly. I'm thinking specifically of Ann Thompson and > Matt Taibbi. (SNIP)
If that's the Anne Thompson from NBC, then I'm thrilled, having been a huge fan of hers from her days in Detroit at WDIV. She was much beloved for her reporting back then, and I'm glad she's still got the proverbial chops. On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM, David Lynch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Kurtz gets a huge benefit from the fact that, as a media critic, he pretty > gets to wait until the storm is over and then tell people they did it wrong. > I wouldn't say that New York dodged a bullet, but it turned out to be a much > smaller caliber than it could have been. The prediction was for a category > two storm on Friday morning, if not later. If the reverse had come to pass > -- that Irene was forecast to weaken to a tropical storm just as it hit NYC > but actually was a category 2 hurricane, I'm sure he'd be complaining that > there wasn't enough attention being given to Irene before it came and caused > billions in damage. And, honestly, when you look at the accuracy of the > forecasts for Irene relative to the statistics, the National Hurricane > Center (who absolutely everyone relies on heavily when it comes to > forecasting hurricanes) did a hell of a job with this one. > > Irene got more coverage than it might have if not for hitting New York, but > I think that the prediction of a category 2 storm hitting a major > metropolitan area would have been big news, even if it had been somewhere > like Miami or Houston that would shrug off a less-intense cyclone. By the > time it became clear that Irene was going to be somewhat weaker than had > been forecast, it was too late to ratchet down the hype machine. Anchors had > been called in on a weekend, reporters sent out into the field, satellite > trucks rented, etc. etc. so the show must go on and they had to make do with > what they could find. I've also gotten the impression that flooding has been > much worse in the suburbs than in the city itself, which, of course, means > it's ignored. I completely and totally disagree. This is a common excuse: "We've sent a reporter, so we might as well use the video, even if it there's nothing there." Now let me introduce you to someone called an "editor", who, in theory, should be able to make what are called "editorial decisions" in what you use and what you don't. You'd ideally like a grownup in that chair. Now, I'm aware that this is not what usually happens in real life, but you know what? I think it's okay to hold people to a little higher standard. I have a Facebook friend who posted a link to a huge climate change denier who proceed to say that it really wasn't a hurricane because he found four random data points that showed onshore winds at less than 50 MPH, so therefore the media *and* the government were lying. I said (in a much larger form), "You're really going to argue that NOAA is lying?" At which point she said "Well, I mean the media's lying. And I don't trust a government official." This is what the behavior leads to: people just start believing that everything's a lie. There's, of course, no right answer. -- 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
