I wonder how long it will be before one of these TV reporters is critically injured or killed by drowning or blowing debris?
Are TV ratings worth risking the lives of these people?
It’s nuts. My two pet peeves with coverage:
- Stop interviewing those that don't evacuate during mandatory evacuations.
- Bring your reporters inside and just place a camera outside if you want to show us.
Both send the wrong message to idiots who may think it is okay to go outside or stay in unsafe places.
I wonder what all the parents of these reporters think watching their adult kids out there in the elements?!
Yes, one blowing piece of debris could, doG forbid, decapitate a reporter on national TV. Or at least severely would them. There is nothing they can do to prevent it when the person is standing out in the weather.
Most of these reporters are just outside a safe place – where the cameraman and his expensive camera are. When they’re not doing their (fairly ridiculous) live shots, they scoot inside, out of harm’s way.
Interestingly, the few weather folks I saw on CNN explained that they were reporting from a place where they have a roof overhang protecting them or they had a metal bar to grab onto when it gets dicey and they made sure there is nothing in the vicinity that can turn into a projectile.
These people are far more likely to be killed driving to work than in a storm. They love severe weather, covering it, analyzing it, etc. They have the equipment and support personnel right there and scope out the locations ahead of time. They’re far “safer” than regular stormchasers.
There have been thousands of stormchasers over the decades and only four fatalities from tornadoes (all in the 2013 El Reno event). The reports from chasers (and trained observers) are used by the NWS to update the rest of us on evolving events. Confirmation on the ground of weather phenomena is critical to the warning process. In addition, their videos and observations are used by researchers to help understand how the phenomena develop and evolve over time. Many of the undergrads in the OU meteorology department are chasers along with many of the mets at NOAA offices out in the Plains.
I can’t emphasize “ground confirmation” enough. Your NWS office can only know so much from remote sensing tools like radar, satellite imagery, and models. If you see hail, damaging winds, or tornadoes during a thunderstorm, report it to your NWS office. Put the mPING app on your phone or tablet and report what you see during a severe or winter event. That information goes directly to the national weather research labs to aid in developing models. If you complain about weathermen getting paid to be wrong all time, well, there’s your chance to help them earn their pay!
Ok, enough with my PSA…
@droppedit I was referring to the TV anchors who are out in the storm giving updates. “Yes it is rainy and windy”. I am not referring to professional storm chasers or NWS people.
I noticed a point about 18 hours ago where the coverage on the Weather Channel seemed to shift from being largely informational to largely (though not entirely) entertainment. I pretty much quit watching, and am instead following live blogs from the areas that I am particularly interested in (Jacksonville, Atlanta).
I see it both ways.
They certainly seem to be putting themselves in harms way. But yes, they often had a caveat about where they were and how close they were to cover.
I think part of it is viewership “entertainment” and part of it is awareness. A screen just showing a camera is not going to have an impact on the people/fools who might think about going outside in the elements as it does to see the live action shots of a human barely standing up. Showing the live coverage with voice and person also helps to let those staying in their boarded up homes to have a visual of what is happening outside around them - they can’t see with their boarded up homes!
There will always be fools going out in the elements no matter what. I do wonder how it’s determined who gets the beat to be out in the elements. Voluntary? Pick a straw? Can they say “nope, not going out there??”
I do think the CNN Asian woman I saw yesterday morning was about as lightweight of a person you could pick to put out there!
Depends on if it’s the Weather Channel with trained professionals who go into storms for a living or national news networks covering the story of the day.
I have a relative who lives near the west coast in south central FL. They indicated that the local weather was not being nearly as dramatic about the storm as the national news was. They took it seriously but gave a more realistic impression of what was to be expected. The national news made it sound like Florida’s very existence was in question. In my opinion the coverage of theses storms by the national news amounts to “weather porn”.
I hope the raincoat industry takes note and creates a hurricane reporter hood. For whatever reason the flapping hoods yesterday were driving me crazy.
https://www.boston.com/news/media/2017/09/11/as-irmas-winds-rise-so-does-a-debate-over-tv-storm-reporting?s_campaign=bcom%3Asocialflow%3Afacebook
“As Irma’s winds rise, so does a debate over TV storm reporting”
Its part of the entertainment nature of the news. Looks incredibly dumb to me to see people hunched over standing out in the water, wind and rain. Doing the same things they tell people (justifiably so) not to do. In certain cases, you can preface it with “Don’t try this at home; I am a trained expert.” But that often isn’t the case. And the vast majority of people watching (at least on the national networks) were not going to be tempted to go out in Irma anyway. So using the “we go out there and show you how bad it is so you won’t be tempted to go out and find out for yourself” isn’t valid.
There is a certain level of one-upmanship going on. I put someone out at the scene under cover, and you have someone standing out in the weather on the edge of the water. So I send someone wading out into the water. And it continues. Everyone trying to get that ratings boost or award for their coverage (and the ratings boost that hopefully will bring).
And I suspect there is something of the watching that coverage like some people watch auto racing-- to see an accident. And there is some shock value in it as well. Once the weather coverage becomes routine, people get bored with it and you have to take it to another level to keep people interested.
I posted on NBC and ABC news FB pages to please bring those people in before we see one get killed on live TV!
And yes, it absolutely sends the wrong message. Any number of idiots will say “oh, look, he’s right out in it. I’m not going to leave next time. There’s no reason to” etc. etc.
I think network heads are hoping something happens live. So worrying a reported will be impaled or drown is wasted bc it is probably what they secretly hope for. A shame.
Here in Tampa- now the aftermath. All of the local stations were on 24/7, no commercials for a couple of days. The weather was so variable in different parts of the local TV viewing area. No sensationalism but giving us an idea of how the region was faring. They did stay safe- being in a three sided loading dock area , parking garage, outside their hotel, etc. Since no one was out it gave us information.
I agree that the Weather Channel has deteriorated. Verizon dropped it for the useless AccuWeather channel and Frontier still has that contract. I liked being able to find out about weather all over the country, especially where friends and family are. I did not wnat to see junky shows instead. Sometimes switched to CNN to get a different point of view, they were local for Irma. Also news from elsewhere.
If anyone is interested in an intelligent, thoughtful, down to earth meteorologist, check out the facebook page for Denis Phillips at WFTS.
Pretty funny bit on The Daily Show last night along these lines.
Trevor Noah even got an anti-vaxxer joke in at 00:46.
AT 02:49 he starts getting into the reporting of the hurricane.