Weather Event Reporting

[landtuna]

It's not fake if a reporter stands in the middle of a storm and reports the weather.



The backgrounds of the weather reporters were not faked. They were in fact standing in the rain. They have no reason to fake the weather.

You obviously don't remember the reporter "bracing" himself against the onslaught as two people walked calmly by in the background. There were others but I have made my point.

 

[landtuna]

Because “the original subject which was putting your network anchor in the middle of a very strong and dangerous storm to say the obvious (or faking it as the case may be)“ clearly indicates it wasn’t about the “who.” Your own words contradict themselves.

I used the anchors as the ultimate use of idiocy. Either the anchor(s) or their bosses dictated they stand in a hurricane during their report. In both cases it shows an abysmal understand of their jobs.

And, as noted, there’s nothing fake about the reporting. There was a hurricane. There was flooding. The network anchors reported as much. That is factual. Whether it is done in a way that appeases your tastes is irrelevant.

You and Big A both don't seem to have watched as the reporter "braced" himself against a non-existent wind. How could the viewers tell? Why, by the couple in the background that casually strolled by seemingly unaffected. Of course the CBS anchor did do a spot when he was being pummeled by actual rain and wind. He is as dumb as his viewers if he believes that was necessary (and safe) to relate the storm.

This type of "reporting" is as stupid as watching your local TV host make tacos. Of course that would be "entertainment". This should be serious news. Big difference.

There were other examples but I am done "discussing" this subject with a troll.

 

[TheBigA]

You obviously don't remember the reporter "bracing" himself against the onslaught as two people walked calmly by in the background. There were others but I have made my point.

You love to use the one exception to prove your point. And it once again overlooks your original subject.

But it points out why the public prefers having the reporter in the field, so they can see for themselves what's actually happening.

 

[davideduardo]

Reporting a bonafide war story when your closest ally is hanging on by their fingernails might be considered by most a proper and responsible way of news reporting with justifiable risks. I certainly would not think it falls into the contrived and silly weather reporting we recently saw.

There was one reported incident of a reporter leaning into the wind as passersby walked on camera with little effort. It was the exception to generally solid reporting during this last hurricane.

And we can debate whether the reporter had adopted the stance out of an abundance of caution during the live report to avoid being hit by gusts. And we can actually criticize the couple walking by for being out in the storm when they did not need to be there.

But the main issue is that TV viewers want genuine live reports from as close to the scene of news as possible. Humans are generally curious, and we want to witness things "in person" via the media. And the media knows that the most vivid on-site reporting will attract the most viewers.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

One reporter acting questionably, even if one assumes poor intent, does not tar an entire group, any more than one doctor behaving poorly taints all doctors; or one teacher; or one auto mechanic...et al. I saw the report. I chuckled and moved on. What I didn't do was get my knickers into a knot over it.

As for "their" jobs, it is what their bosses say it is, not what I say it is, not what you say it is. Broadly speaking, that includes often being at the scene of some major news events. Destructive hurricanes fit the bill. A handful of curmudgeons don't change that reality. And you still haven't said what IS necessary and proper in your hypothetical scenario. Does it warrant having any correspondent there? A camera and technical crew? Who? Whose job, precisely, is it to cover such an event, and how should they cover it? With pictures? Video? Audio? Only wire services? Pool reporters? Is three the correct number of staff? Five? Twelve? What type of situation is deemed appropriate to send...whoever? And when may they be sent? How many hours after may they arrive to document the damage? Days?

The fact is the journalists going to such locations take abundant precautions. Can they prevent every unfortunate incident? No. That's the nature of life. But there is plenty that goes into preparing for such things that helps mitigate the risk, with some level of risk being part of the job. Sometimes it's the least risky-appearing situations that end tragically, because it was so out-of-the-blue.

We live in a visual world. As David so concisely noted, we are curious--well, most of us are. We react to images and sound. And we rely on people in "the media" to do the job of bringing us the types of information we--collectively--wish to see.

 

[seatownmedia]

One reporter acting questionably, even if one assumes poor intent, does not tar an entire group, any more than one doctor behaving poorly taints all doctors; or one teacher; or one auto mechanic...et al. I saw the report. I chuckled and moved on. What I didn't do was get my knickers into a knot over it.

As for "their" jobs, it is what their bosses say it is, not what I say it is, not what you say it is. Broadly speaking, that includes often being at the scene of some major news events. Destructive hurricanes fit the bill. A handful of curmudgeons don't change that reality. And you still haven't said what IS necessary and proper in your hypothetical scenario. Does it warrant having any correspondent there? A camera and technical crew? Who? Whose job, precisely, is it to cover such an event, and how should they cover it? With pictures? Video? Audio? Only wire services? Pool reporters? Is three the correct number of staff? Five? Twelve? What type of situation is deemed appropriate to send...whoever? And when may they be sent? How many hours after may they arrive to document the damage? Days?

The fact is the journalists going to such locations take abundant precautions. Can they prevent every unfortunate incident? No. That's the nature of life. But there is plenty that goes into preparing for such things that helps mitigate the risk, with some level of risk being part of the job. Sometimes it's the least risky-appearing situations that end tragically, because it was so out-of-the-blue.

We live in a visual world. As David so concisely noted, we are curious--well, most of us are. We react to images and sound. And we rely on people in "the media" to do the job of bringing us the types of information we--collectively--wish to see.

Of course we react to images and sound. However, when it becomes redundant we tend to become less tolerant and less interested. I'm sorry, but weather anchors blowing in the wind is not interesting to me anymore. Done. Over with.

I would much prefer to see more scientific information of the logistics of a storm than an anchor trying not to fall on his/her ass. But I guess I am in the minority here, as the lowest common denominator will win every time. So be it.

 

[TheBigA]

I guess I am in the minority here, as the lowest common denominator will win every time. So be it.

The other way to describe it is majority rules.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Thinking oneself better than those who prefer something else does not mean the "others" represent a "lowest common denominator."