For the past week I’ve been hearing about an incoming storm – the worst storm yet this season. A big one – THE big one. The “Great Storm of October 13, 2009.”
Hmmmm…well maybe…or maybe not. Too often (paint me guilty when I was young) those in news do not take a long view, but rather look at news with the depth of their own experiences. I’ve heard reporters (with a straight face) tell the audience that, “in all of my two and a half years on air, I’ve never seen anything like this.”
And it’s not just TV reporters, but print reporters…PJs and VJs from both realms…producers, editors. There’s a whole audience being lost because they remember more than what they are seeing/hearing on the news. Let’s hear from a couple of folks with a long view of news.
The weather radar gave a colorful picture (thank you Lynn Diehl, who pasted to her facebook) as the storm approached.
I contacted a few facebook friends – Al Golub, former photog with the Modesto Bee (currently living near Yosemite) and former KOVR reporter Lynn Diehl (living near the coast in the San Luis Obispo area) and had these conversations. Here is Lynn’s reply.
(Message sent to LD)
I’m blogging about media coverage of this storm that just passed through and was wondering what the hype was in your area and what the reality was. I know your grape growers were scrambling (my neighborhood near Lodi was crawling with harvesters trying to beat the rain)…but other than ag (which I do want to hear about) what other effects were there?Hi Cyndy – the storm coverage didn’t seem overhyped, but I must admit I didn’t watch any tv news. With internet and postings by some meteorologists with links to weather service models, I didn’t pay much attention to tv/radio/newspaper. Many wine grape growers have their own weather service consultants. It did produce a lot of rain near mountains where you get a storm “lift”. Since we are in a drought,because of wildfire burn areas in SB County and LA and because of the timing in regards to harvest, information was valuable, I think. However, I am not affected by “tease writing” and “ratings manipulation” because I can choose when and where to access info. I think that’s true of many people now. The Weather Channel is what I’m annoyed with. They are so out of touch with the West Coast since they’re based in georgia. I expect more from them.
And Al Golub had this to say:
(Comment postd to AG FB)
Hey big guy – how bad do you rate this storm on a scale of 1-10, considering all of the storms you’ve been through. I’m posting on the thinknews blog…think there was a mite bit too much hype, at least in our area, about this killer storm.It wasn’t much of a storm! We had some 25 mph plus wind gusts but no real damage. Only a few limb snaps like 1.5″ to 2″ diameter. My neighbor said his rain gauge read 4″. But it helped put a kink in the fire danger. Now I have to sweep off the patio and walkways. Oh yea, the TV stations hyped it up too much.
Those were the reactions of a couple of veterans who’ve been out in all kinds of weather.
A couple of things to know about how decisions are made on whether to cover/now to cover a news story. How big is the story, how close is the story, who is part of the story, how does it affect your audience?
If you’re local, even small news (one tree falls) is big news. If you’re regional or national – probably not.
If the story happens in your backyard – cover it. If it happens in say, Alabama – maybe not.
If I get stranded in a downpour…I’m just your typical schmuck. If it were the Schwartzengubernator – wow (so celebrities are a draw).
If it’s snowing in Alaska – my audience may not care. If it is snowing now and no one has tire chains…they may care greatly.
I was up in Tahoe when this one hit, although I did drive through it on Hiway 50 to Placerville and back. One or two gust of wind…some branches down and a light dusting of snow at the summit. According to a night owl who was also staying up in Tahoe, the wind hit late Tuesday night – loud enough to wake him up.
Here’s how the Record in Stockton covered three days of weather – before/during/after. First, the day before.
Next, the day after (10/14/09):
A reasonable heads up to the readers about the impending storm and good coverage of the aftermath, without going overboards.
Finally – closest to home – the Lodi News Sentinel the day before.
The day after (10/14/09):
And two days later (10/15/09):
Overview: the Record as a regional (San Joaquin and several mountain counties) paper kept it short and sweet and managed to mention all areas. They had a great twitter stream going on through the storm where readers could update the storm situation in their area as it passed through.
Not a lot of hype – just a heads up before the storm hit.
Good facts and use of graphics about how bad the storm was/amount of rainfall.
The Sentinel played the heads up regarding the storm well too – front page because it could be bad/or not…but bottom of the page. The headline minimized the storm.
What I liked about the Sentinel was the second day after – a lot of practical advice on perishables if your fridge/freezer went out, how bad was the storm, etc.
So although this was a nasty early winter storm…the local print media stayed sane.
Those in the San Francisco Bay Area bore the brunt of the weather, with records broken for rainfall in many towns and cities.
Wrapping it up for the SF Bay area.
Was there hype? Yes – on all media in the Bay area…print and broadcast. But in those areas the storm lived up to the hype.
In the valley? Minimal hype with print media, but TV played it up perhaps a bit too much with warnings and live shots. (I’ve played that game…find the one tree down, the one flooded street. Also been caught in storms so bad I swear the water was flying skyward, not downward.)
My take is that the print media print editions have time to gather the news and have to be somewhat conservative because by the time the audience reads the paper the facts could change.
TV hypes the news because they can change as the story changes, minute by minute. Not a good thing if the audience only catches segments. Plus (see Lynn’s comments above) the audience does not appreciate being taken for a ride.
As a (growing) older former newsie, I’d say storm pre/during/post coverage ranged from competent to good. Print did a more commendable job than broadcast on overall coverage, although broadcast was better for ongoing updates through the storm. I just wish broadcast style would revert back a few decades into a more reasonable tone of voice when presenting…that breathless “listen to me because big things are about to happen” voice is irritating.
Posted by Cyndy Green
