Too much coverage?

[janswizard]

The networks are being criticized for "too much coverage" on Hurricane Isabel. I wonder if those that are doing the criticizing would feel the same if they lived on/near the coast and a major hurricane was heading in their direction.

[wx247]

You know what? I was thinking just the opposite. I was thinking that the cable networks didn't cover it enough. But what do I know?

[Fishmn]

In my opinion. We got winds topping out at around 20 MPH and gusts to 35 or so with very little rain <1". The media in the NYC area blew the storm way out of proportion even long after it was obvious that we would be getting very little rain or damaging winds. My wife lost a days pay because her employer was worried of Floyd like flooding and cancelled all appointments. Most schools are off today when the sky is blue and the weather beautiful. I think the coverage was good in the areas that were affected directly but here its was out of control an not needed as it caused many to panic and lots of anxiety.

[alicia-w]

I think it's better to err on the side of caution. If folks had not said so much and things had indeed hit the fan on a broader scale, then people would be complaining about that too. SO you just can make everybody happy. I still think a good number of lives may have been saved and injuries reduced by the mandatory evacuations.

[HurricaneQueen]

For us weather junkies, you can never have too much coverage.

On the other hand I do believe that some of the networks put their reporters into dangerous situations and they were lucky that except for a couple of antics posted here all survived relatively unscathed.

[themusk]

I'd argue that it wasn't "too much coverage"-- it was inappropriate coverage.

There was a story there-- a really exciting story, one that had us on the edge of our seats till almost the very end. But the story we followed was not the simplistic and often misleading story the mass media told about Isabel.

sigh... what I wouldn't do for just one intelligent, informative, accurate major media outlet.

[ColdWaterConch]

You could tell is was a slow news week, as the coverage was all hype.

Everyone here laughs at the reporters getting blown away on camera, yet wants to jail the idiots out on the beach during the storm. Y'know what, the idiot reporters encourage that behavior...

I have a problem with the MSNBC reporter's story....the wind was not strong enough in the storm, so he stands between two buildings, which are creating a wind tunnel, so he can show the world the scary wind. What a farce.

[JCT777]

Everyone here laughs at the reporters getting blown away on camera, yet wants to jail the idiots out on the beach during the storm. Y'know what, the idiot reporters encourage that behavior...

I agree that seeing the reporters braving these conditions does have some influence on people who decide to go to the beach during a hurricane.

Regarding the media coverage of Isabel, I think it depended where you were located. No doubt Isabel deserved SOME coverage regardless of where you live, since it was a hurricane that was headed for the U.S. mainland. But there were some areas (like my own) that probably received more coverage of Isabel from the local news than it deserved, even when all forecasts were for the storm to pass well west of the area, sparing us from flooding rains and very high winds.

[Kennethb]

Being a East Coast Storm, a former Cat 5, and plenty of hype, there were plenty of reporters who wanted to report the story. You can bet if it was Louisiana, as in last year, the storms would not get as much coverage.

Sure there are many large cities on the East Coast affected by the storm.

But having so many reporters in the middle of the storm gives the public a false sense of security. If the storm had pulsed up as it came shore, more people and media would have been in trouble. And when the next storm comes people might feel they can weather the storm.

[JtSmarts]

Kennethb, I totally agree with you about LA, I don't think there was this much coverage with Lili when she was a Cat 4.

[Colin]

They sure covered it enough here...and I have to say...TWC did a wonderful job, even though they almost lost one of their mets! :o

[Persepone]

I agree with the comment that it is not a question of quantity but appropriateness.

"Too much coverage?" That's why TVs have "off" buttons...

Appropriate coverage is the answer. This website and WREL (Thanks Scott) and other weather-related sites tell you WHAT predictions are based on and WHY things are changing so you can intelligently decide what, if anything, you should do before a storm. As for warning people of a possibility, that is fine if you tell them to stay alert to it without panicking them unnecessarily. Why can't TV networks show the model maps or tell people what is changing so they understand a little better? Then they would not get tired of the "same" story over and over and they would be able to make intelligent decisions--or change the channel.

As for "false alarms," I'm sure that there are people on the east coast who bought extra batteries and did not need them. Big whoop! So they have a head start on Christmas shopping--those toys need zillions of batteries. Besides, these days batteries last for years until you use them. Having an "emergency" kit/plan etc. that you check and replenish periodically is not a bad thing--works for hurricanes, flooding, ice storms, all sorts of disasters equally well. And even if you went so far as to clean up your yard--well, it's not a bad thing to do that once in a while. Frankly, I'd much rather have a "false alarm" than the real thing any day--and I've been through some major hurricanes--the earliest I remember well was Hazel. I'll always be glad to not be hit by a hurricane!

I'd agree also with the comment about the networks sending out the weathercasters to the beaches! This really does convey the impression that it is "safe" to go and see!

Back in the 80s, when networks did have a "local feed" it featured local weathercasters. There is a very different message if you have a local news/weathercaster reporting or you have the high profile, national network people "going to see" a hurricane--or any other disaster for that matter. It DOES convey the impression that this is okay to do somehow. Also, the local people tend to be more blunt about the dangers, etc. For one thing, they "know" the danger spots. For another, there is more of a reason for them to be there--it is their "home." There is a very different "message" if you see a local person reporting local conditions than if you see people who have "flown in for the hurricane" on TV.

Yesterday someone posted about the man with a child on the beach and the question was whether this was some form of "child abuse." I'm not going to argue that one way or another except to say that my parents were that sort of idiots and the net result is that from quite an early age, I learned not to trust my parents to keep me safe (ancient history--I'm almost 60). But I also realize that they firmly believed that someone would "save" them (or me?) if they got in real trouble. Today I spoke to my mother who is in VA sitting in the dark because she did not check her flashlight batteries--I spoke to her this morning--but I have no sympathy. I only hope that no one feels sorry for her and tries to "rescue" her--she is not in any danger--and she deserves her discomfort. In 80 odd years, she still has not learned any better. She could have done some basic preparation--she was reminded--but she chose not to. All the TV coverage in the world--or the absence of it--will not teach her to think. The idiot in Rhode Island who was swept off the rocks by a rogue wave (and the other idiots who were not swept off) had absolutely no business there--those rocks are dangerous when there is no storm. What were they thinking? On the other hand, being related to someone who thinks like that (or does not think is perhaps the better way to put it), I can see that the inappropriate TV coverage that shows newscasters, windsurfers, people with little kids, other assorted jerks out there apparently getting some sort of adrelanine rush from the danger makes it both alluring and somehow conveys the impression that it can't be as dangerous as it looks! But this is the stuff that the news and weathercasters choose to show!

Just once I'd like to see them show footage where they interview people who "do it right." I'd like them to show someone in an evacuation area preparing for the storm intelligently--putting their stuff up that they leave, boarding up, packing important papers, changes of clothing, etc. etc. in their cars, and moving out. And for people who are in a place where they are going to stay to ride out the storm, how they determined that it is probably safe (and choose a place that is, please) and how they have prepared their "safe room" and what supplies they have in it, etc.

And while the windsurfers, regular surfers, sightseers and associated nutcases will probably always be with us, I'd like to see the news/weathercasters all agree not to show them on TV! Probably a bunch of them would stop if they were not assured of their 15 seconds of national TV exposure.