|
Post by MC Blowfish on Oct 11, 2018 6:32:21 GMT -5
They do worst case, because if they said that this could be nothing. People wouldn't do anything and then get killed. It's better to be safe than sorry, especially with hurricanes. If they said that a hurricane was coming, but it might not be that severe. Then it changes and turns into a monster. People will lose their lives and then people will complain that the weather analysts didn't properly warn them. Where is a happy medium then? I think the best case scenario is to provide honest and accurate reporting. If they're wrong then come out immediately and say they were wrong. By then it could too late. Let's use the example of this hurricane. It was supposed to hit Wednesday. If they sat back and didn't tell people how bad it was going to be on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, you're going to have plenty of people stuck in traffic trying to evacuate. Or they won't have to time to find safety.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Oct 11, 2018 12:09:28 GMT -5
Where is a happy medium then? I think the best case scenario is to provide honest and accurate reporting. If they're wrong then come out immediately and say they were wrong. By then it could too late. Let's use the example of this hurricane. It was supposed to hit Wednesday. If they sat back and didn't tell people how bad it was going to be on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, you're going to have plenty of people stuck in traffic trying to evacuate. Or they won't have to time to find safety. I get what you're saying. I guess what I am remembering is how when I was growing up, as a kid who was very interested in weather and storms, going as far as to read and study them in the process. I used to watch the Weather Channel and other meteorologists growing up and it's a stark contrast to how they talk about storms now. Back when I was a kid in the nineties they didn't hype storms up, they spoke about them intelligently and in detail, spoke about the seriousness nature, and urged citizens to take precautions without the dramatics and hysteria. Now they spend much more time building it up and not saying anything except regurgitating the same rhetoric that other media outlets are spewing. They also weren't afraid to admit that they were wrong. Somewhere along the line it became lets hype up the storm, cover the disaster, and get more money out of people who are already in a panic.
|
|
|
Post by YAKMAN is ICHIBAN on Oct 11, 2018 12:26:58 GMT -5
By then it could too late. Let's use the example of this hurricane. It was supposed to hit Wednesday. If they sat back and didn't tell people how bad it was going to be on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning, you're going to have plenty of people stuck in traffic trying to evacuate. Or they won't have to time to find safety. I get what you're saying. I guess what I am remembering is how when I was growing up, as a kid who was very interested in weather and storms, going as far as to read and study them in the process. I used to watch the Weather Channel and other meteorologists growing up and it's a stark contrast to how they talk about storms now. Back when I was a kid in the nineties they didn't hype storms up, they spoke about them intelligently and in detail, spoke about the seriousness nature, and urged citizens to take precautions without the dramatics and hysteria. Now they spend much more time building it up and not saying anything except regurgitating the same rhetoric that other media outlets are spewing. They also weren't afraid to admit that they were wrong. Somewhere along the line it became lets hype up the storm, cover the disaster, and get more money out of people who are already in a panic. That's the 24 hour news cycle for you. There's little it doesn't poison.
|
|