View Full Version : Hurricane Isabel news coverage
09-18-03, 08:39 AM
So I'm watching CNN right now and the news of the moment is Hurricane Isabel. The thing looks big, it looks bad, and it will cause millions of dollars in damages.
SO WHAT THE @#%$ ARE YOU DOING IN THE MIDDLE OF IT!
The man 'on the scene' is tracking the hurricane and providing the news room with great insights such as.
"The wind is blowing"
"The tide is rising"
"This just in from the national weather service, water is wet!"
/flash historical data on Hurricane Hugo/Andrew/TinkyWinky to scare the populace
Ok so the place is a ghost town and you're right on the beach, why do I see a cars passing in the background? Of course its hard to make out the reporter since the camera so obscured by water droplets, a blessing in disguise. I'm just waiting for a big gust to come by and blow his ass down the street. As much as I'd like to see some Darwin award winners after the hurricane blows through, why dont you just rely on scientific data to show how bad and dangerous it is over there? Hell I'm not the brightest individual on the planet, CNN makes running around in 75mph winds look like FUN!
HAHAHAHA some genius news reporter in waders almost got sucked out to sea. If any news person did manage to get themselves killed I'm sure we'd have a new 'hero' to mourn.
09-18-03, 08:47 AM
"Why do reporters go to Iraq to cover the war? They'll just be shot hahaha."
It's called journalism. Reporters are there to cover the story, and what better way to do it then by being in the middle of it? Sure they are often risking their lifes to do it, but that's why they do it.
09-18-03, 08:58 AM
I would hardly equate war coverage to hurricane coverage simply because there is a risk of death.
One person I could understand, but sending 5 people into the storm, each of them with an identical background of grey clouds, each of them barely able to withstand the force of the wind doesn't make much sense. There is enough historical and scientific data to describe the devastating force of a hurricane without needing to put somebodys life at risk. Besides, a hurricane isn't going to blow through Iraq and kill Saddam for us. I am grateful for all the on the spot reporting with the Iraq war.
The wind here isnt that bad yet, richmond va. Gusts are getting to the 30's. Anywho, we ran around outside in shorts and t-shirts it was fun times.
09-18-03, 04:55 PM
I wish they'd stop breaking in with updates on it. It's a big storm. It's causing trouble. Just give me the numbers once it's over and only break in when the president's resigned or we've invaded another country. --------------------------
Gyorg Lavode, The original Phin-o-matic Safehouse Moderator
Unguilded Assassin Badass
of the 65th Moon over Xegony
09-18-03, 05:45 PM
Hehe never go work for a TV station in Boston. The town of Scituate, MA seems to attract all the horrible weather. When the hurricanes come, it gets pummelled with rain. When there's snow, they get 3 feet more than the rest of the state.
And the rookie TV reporter ALWAYS has to go to Scituate to report.
"Well Dan, I'm here in Scituate, and as you can see, it's really raining. I've never been this wet in my life."
09-19-03, 06:47 AM
Heh...this reminds me. Last night, I was surfing around and glanced at a headline that was supposed to read "Isabel slams NC." At first I thought it said, "Israel slams NC" and thought to myself, 'wtf? Now Israel is attacking us?!?!"
09-19-03, 06:58 AM
The only reason they do it is because they can. Its the same reason local news always have "live" reports about the various news stories of the day. Usually it is about a court case that recessed hours before, or they are at the scene of an accident that had been cleaned up for hours. The story could be told just as effectively without standing in front of a generic building, but they are all convinced that we won't believe them if they don't.
Oh, and if you want someone to blame for the trend sending reporters out in really bad weather, you can thank Dan Rather (it might have been Tom Brokaw, I'm not positive). When he worked for a local TV station, he went out and braved the elements to report on a bad weather-type story. I don't recall the details, but it seems like there was actually a good reason for him to be out there.
Anyway, going out and braving the storm made Dan Rather's career. Now, every reporter with hopes of ever becoming a national news anchor feels like they must mimic Dan Rather, and go out to stand in bad weather, or put themselves in the way of other stupid dangers, just to let us know the obvious.
I wish they'd stop breaking in with updates on it. It's a big storm. It's causing trouble.
Well, the main reason its getting so much attention, is that it looked like it was going to hit the northeast pretty bad.
That is, the spot where msot of the national media-types reside.
If it wasn't projected to head that way, they wouldn't have given it nearly as much attention. But that goes for just about any story, not merely weather-related items.
appropriate link for this thread.