I'm watching MSNBC for hurricane coverage, and everyone's acting like a fucking atom bomb just fell on the east coast of the United States.
What the fuck. Do you think any other country has a news media like this? Isn't there a difference between reporting the facts and reporting in an endless panic?
They're now having to play up a fucking cat 1, which will most likely be a tropical storm by the time it gets to the DC metro area.
This kind of news reporting has costs. Look at how much money is being spent on these evacuations, for what I'd bet will be a goddamned rain storm by the time it gets to NYC. All the sand bagging, boarding up shops, etc.
Why is the news reported like this? To increase ratings. Higher ratings equals bigger ad revenues.
This is what happens when the news has to turn a profit.
Btw, speaking of idiot trolls, guess whose OP's have been pulled ?--------
-- Modified on 8/27/2011 8:04:05 AM
I don't normally give him a second glance but since you mentioned it.
Wait a minute; that troll comment wasn't directed at me was it? lol
if and when a "real" storm actually occurs.
People living in the effected areas are going to come away with a "well that wasn't so bad" attitude about Irene, which could be fatal if a Cat 3,4,5 storm ever hits them.
Being practical and respecting the power of mother nature is one thing, getting all hysterical, ala ng and MSNBC is quite another.
This is not "the storm to end all storms" or anything even close, truth is we have several storms every fucking year much worse than this one. It really is a shame the media has so much invested in this storm they feel they can't let the facts stand in their way of their coverage.
Does anybody besides ng and the news media think this is anything more than the storms that hit the gulf coast every couple of months during this time of year?
I sincerely hope a "real" storm doesn't his the area anytime in the next several years, My fear is that residents who successfully weathered this rather mild storm Irene will think that riding out a Cat 3+ storm will be a piece of cake as well, with fatal consequences.
If it turns out to not be as bad as predicted, cries of "overreacting", "creating unnecessary panic", etc. If the opposite happens, the media pigs will be squealing about our local, state and federal government not doing enough knowing what was to be expected beforehand.
He is going to look like an ass...
It's all about the rating Willy. Good weather does not help drive viewership.
Hurricanes are serious business, and should be taken seriously. I have been evacuated several times from impending hurricanes, the first time by helicopter from an offshore platform. After seeing the damage caused, and the loss of life from previous storms, I feel Bloomberg did the prudent thing. After Katrina and the dropping of the ball at every possible government level, starting at the Mayor office, can you blame him?
The acts of an overly hyperbolic media are a completely different matter, they are still trying to make front page, end of the world news out of a rather run of the mill hurricane
And they also did it when Katrina was coming. And lots of people still didn't listen and then had to be rescued from their roofs. Yelling about the media is like yelling about the weather, and about as useful.
The level of state control in many other ocuntries is astounding. You cannot even imagine it if you have only lived in the US.
In 1976, I spent 8 weeks in the USSR. The first day I got there, they had a story about Isreal attacking an African nation. In the pre-internet days, they didn't have the International Herald Tribune or ANY other western paper.
I spoke almost fluent Russian at the time, so I could read Pravda and Ivestvia, the two main papers, one controlled by the party, the other by the state - for balance. (The line re balance is a joke.)
I didn't know Isreal was conducting a rescue mission until I got to Finland. Not one news outlet in the USSR had any motive for the "attack."
I have similar stories about Syria. When I was there in 1999, there was one internet cafe in Damascus, across the street from the main international hotel. You gave the operator your passport before you could sign on.
Go to the local university library and ask to see the entire batch of newspapers from Cuba for the last week. Take someone who speaks Spanish, if you do not
You will then go to Jefferson's grave and kiss the ground.
Because I read the Guardian regularly, and watch the BBC, and for some reason, they manage to produce quality not-for-profit news. Not to mention a good TV show here and there.
The UK is where I have spent more time than any other one place. I never "lived" there full time, but I spent 5 weeks there on three different occassions - mostly London. (My first trip I took a guide book "London on Five Dollars a Day." That's embarassing.) I have also gone there for numerous smaller trips, such as several (forget how many) 10 to 14 day jaunts.
Also, I hate planes so much that when I travel someplace that is more than two hours from London such as Italy, Syria, Egypet, Turkey, Hungary, I stop either in London or Paris to break up the trip. but that is only for a few days to avoid too much jet lag.
Does that answer your question?
The good thing about the Brits is they have a variety of different types of papers. The papers are openly liberal or conservative so you know where they are coming from. (In the old days in Ireland, you could look at someone in a cafe and tell if he was Protestant or Catholic by the paper he was reading.)
They report the news facts without bias. They are government funded, but that does not stop them from reporting on stories that the embarrass the government. The Canadian CBC is also very good.
You can try to predict where they're going to land, and their strength, but they can change on a dime. Rode one out in Florida, and there was a lot of destruction; pretty scary. A couple of years later one came knocking on the door once again. It got about a hundred miles off shore, then petered out. The local merchants and businessmen went to court to try to sue the National Weather Bureau for the lost income the suffered due to drop in tourism.
Why the endless reporting on the storm? Probably because the press knows that a great many people are being, or will be affect by the storm, and there is even a greater number of people who have someone the know very closely, being affected by the storm.
Most are copying CNN and Faux for 24 hr news. All have to sell ads so what is better than Sensationalism, right?
Reson I stopped watching 24 hr new. Google news gives what I need to know.
So they have a bias toward that city. A Cat 1 hurricane in Florida of the Gulf Coast would be a footnote in the national evening news. A Cat 1 hits NYC and it warrants 24 hour coverage.
Saw the same thing with the earthquake. 5.8 on the east coast with minor damage to few building in Washington, and you would have thought the area was devastated. What kind of coverage would a 5.8 get in California?