WAS THE HURRICANE coverage responsible?
Did your local newscasts in the Philadelphia region do a fine job of keeping people aware of the storm and potential dangers?
Or did they primarily build fear with their 36 hours of non-stop storm coverage (most of the local stations ran live, local news from early Saturday through Sunday afternoon).
And what about the video above? Is that news?
7 years ago
12 comments:
I can't believe the fear mongering that was in the news, especially considering that it turned out to be a non-event. My home, more inland than Philly, was hit way harder than Philly was, and yet much of the news coverage was of the city. The news of Irene was so wide-spread that it even penetrated into the tech world (where I write) where sites were writing about apps to track hurricanes, etc.
I personally was built up with fear, my mom even made me leave Temple to come home. The news even had my Dad standing outside listening for the whistle sound of a tornado so he could warm us if one were to come. My township even sent out a warning that if you don't leave to put your name and soc. number in your shoe to identify you dead body. Then when I woke up the next morning there wasn't even any flooding around. I was annoyed but thankful nothing bad did happen in my area.
Although ridiculous in retrospect, I really don't see the harm in most, but not all, tactics the news took to warn people of the hurricane. No one can be hurt by constant warnings of the hurricane's power. However, I feel the media went to far by replaying clips from over-reacting public officials. Also, some coverage went a little too far, like the estimated destruction in New York. However, power outages were a serious possibility and, thanks to constant coverage, people stayed informed.
I don't think the hurricane coverage was overkill. Going back on what was said in class, news stations always try to make the stories they produce more exciting than other new stations so it's understandable in some regard that the Irene stories are no different. Also, personal preference plays a role in the way that you might watch a certain channel and have grown to trust that source in some way. I watch ation news and I'm not going to stop watching because they advised me to buy water I ended up not needing. On the contrary, I would stop watching if they fail to inform or advise me of something I find out about later.
While the speculations of possible did come off as rather over-dramatic, I feel that it was important for the media to keep everyone informed for their safety. Recall the flood that occurred just a short time ago in Pittsburgh, PA that resulted in the death of a mother and her two children. The family, trapped inside their van, tragically drowned in an attack by mother nature. Weather is something that can't be completely predictable, and so it's very important for news stations to inform the public to prepare for the worst. Sure, the uproar about the hurricane may seem foolish now, but if it had caused more devastating destruction and the media hadn't been so watchful, then the public would be slandering journalists right now. In essence, everyone did their job. Better to be safe than sorry.
I do think the coverage was exaggerated overall, but it was a combination of trying to draw in the most viewers and what Shauna says - better safe than sorry. If this had turned out to be a horrible storm on par with Katrina and a news station had been vehemently protesting that it was just some wind and rain, people would be pretty sour towards them. They'd forever be known as the Station That Didn't Warn Us. And when you think about how bad Katrina was for the Bush Administration, Obama wasn't going to wave this off as nothing - he was going to come out and tell people to evacuate their homes.
It's also a matter of perspective. Locally everything was fine, but the death toll nationwide is about 40, billions of dollars of damage was done and multiple states have been flooded pretty severely; New York and North Carolina are going to receive federal aid for the damage caused by flood waters.
New England was hit pretty hard, too. I have family there and they're going to be without power for at least a week.
I think that the coverage was good and was not over hyped since either way the public would have been mad. If the storm was bad then people would argue that there was not enough coverage. I feel it is easy to always be placing the blame on the media, sicne in todays society we are always looking for someone else to blame.
I would not say that video was real "news". I know the point of the clip was to show the viewers that eberyone at the news station was taking the storm seriously and were doing a lot to follow it to provide us with information.
Although nothing too serious happened in the Philadelphia region, I believe the constant news coverage was helpful to people who might not have known what to do in the event of a hurricane. I feel that it is best to be prepared for the worst, and be thankful that the worst didin't happen.
I personally think the news in general believes if it scares it sells and if it bleeds it leads. Needless to say I took most of what I heard and read about the hurricane with a few grains of salt. There were a number of towns in Jersey that lost power, but got it back late Sunday. Most of the flooding receeded by the morning. I felt the news, tv, especially wanted to keep you tuned so they had to find something to say and by blowing it out of proportion they kept your attention. I did go suburban kayaking down a street near my house however, bucket list success! -aaron stevens
As far as the hurricane is concerned, people were going to complain either way. If there wasn't enough coverage and people weren't prepared, there'd be complaints about damage, trauma, etc. The fact that there was an overwhelming amount of coverage is both a good and bad thing. The good thing is that although it didn't have the monstrous effect that it was supposed to in some areas, people were still aware and alert. The bad thing is that because the hurricane did minimal damage to most areas, people felt that all of the news and reports were overbearing. It's never really possible to please everyone. As far as this video is concerned, I don't really consider it to be news. It was mainly a glorification of the news channel and its weatherman/hurricane expert. It's a great thing to know that you're dealing with someone who has professional credentials, but you can learn about them on your own time if you wish to. It doesn't need to be broadcasted.
I just turned the weather channel on and they are still covering the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. My point is that the storm was covered properly. If not enough "hype" was put on the storm then people would not have taken the correct precautions. The weather channel said that Hurricane Irene was on of the top 10 natural disasters, in damage totals, to affect the US. Sure Temple University was not affected negatively by the Hurricane, but there was damage in and around this city, but my basement did flood and my Aunt's house lost power (they are a 20minute drive from Temple). My Uncle, who works for PECO, told me over 500,000 homes lost power in the surrounding area. So sure if you stayed in Cape May during the storm you didn't die, but the weather is something we can't control so the media needs to scare people to act accordingly.
I think that they freaked us out when they really didn't need to, but it's better for us to be safe than sorry. While certain places really benefited from this news, because they were able to prepare for it, others wasted their time,and they could have put it to better use. I t was helpful for some but not all.
Post a Comment