Environment, Media, Things That Tick Me Off

Things That Tick Me Off: Irene’s Hurricane Coverage in Washington

My brother sent me this mocking picture making the rounds on the Internet. I thought it was àpropos in the aftermath of Hurricane Irene. The coverage in Washington of the hurricane-that-wasn’t has been absolutely bizarre. It is good to see that this city does not just panic with an inch of snow. We panic with any weather above a flurry or a misting. Folks in parts of North Carolina and other coastal areas have had legitimate concerns (including New York, Vermont and other areas) and Irene’s flooding and power outages were expected to take quite a toll in those hardest hit areas. However, the D.C. coverage was comically ridiculous. I watched one story of how Irene had began “its trail of misery and destruction” toward Washington. General Sherman’s March To the Sea had less dire reviews. I am only talking about Northern Virginia and Washington where the coverage continued in sharp contrast with the actual forecasted weather for our area.

I have been admittedly snarky of the coverage for days, particularly the last 24-hours when the hurricane was a Cat-1 hitting hundreds of miles away. Having lived through pretty big hurricanes in Louisiana, I have a respect for the storms but there was never any predictions of serious rain in my area. For days, I have been checking the various weather sites only to find predictions of two inches of rain and strong winds on Saturday night (with clearing on Sunday). I would then turn on the television or go on the Internet and find live, round-the-clock, breathless coverage of the “misery” and “destruction” coming to Washington. At no time did the forecast predict anything more than roughly a couple inches of rain and high winds. There was clearly a chance for power outages due to the soaked soil and winds, but the coverage in this area was positively apocalyptic.

In addition to ratings, the hysteria did produce record sales at stores as people prepared for the apocalypse with bodies stacked like firewood in the streets.

Everything closed despite the fact that only two inches of rain and some strong winds were predicted. This morning, the coverage continues with reporters showing the same pictures of a couple of trees down to fill time. The rest of the coverage is largely “things that did not happen” stories. My favorite this morning on Channel 4 (NBC) was how in Alexandria the harbor man thought that people who tied up their boats for high tide might have to come back and tie the boats for lower tide. The reporter then went to show how the water has not risen and how high water could have been a problem in causing flooding — if there was high water. As predicted in the actual forecasts for days before the hurricane (as opposed to the news coverage), we had some trees down, some power outages, and rain. Various forecasters (here and here) objected to the overblown claims in places like Washington before the storm hit.

I was not alone in feeling a significant loss of credibility for our local media in the hype leading to the storm — which seemed overtly disconnected to the actual predictions of rain and wind. Of course, at the coast, there were some curious moments such as the reporter who gave a live account while covered in what appears toxic foam.

We decided not to join the apocalyptic preparations and instead invited a couple of the friends of the kids over for a hurricane party and sleepover. Our power went off for exactly twenty seconds, but we had a grand time and watched “Cats v. Dogs” while devouring bags of popcorn. The overkill coverage will only make it more difficult for media and the government to get people to believe them next time when there is a serious threat, in my view.

Of course, most everything is still closed today as we clean up the carnage of blown leaves and soggy lawns in our area. In your view, was Irene overblown?

163 thoughts on “Things That Tick Me Off: Irene’s Hurricane Coverage in Washington”

  1. Gyges, do not worry about it. I do a lot of courtroom work and am used to what I say being taken out of context and spun to make a point diametrically opposite to what I actually said or intended.

  2. I did some research of Florida insurance. Deductibles are all over the landscape, with some public employees paying a lot more than others. Seems different agencies contract with different third party payers. Based on the research I have done over the last thirty or so minutes, the DKos story is certainly credible. Also notice none of the Florida commenters disputed the diarist’s story. Believe me, that bunch will be on you like a rooster on a June Bug if you make a claim that is disprovable. DKos stories usually are subject to a lot of impromptu fact checking.

  3. @Gyges,

    You are missing something. You’re taking the question out of context. If you look at the quoted statement of OS and then look at my question, it may make more sense.

  4. NoWay,

    You asked “Who wants to defund NOAA? I’ve never heard that before. Where did you come up with that?” Now, maybe I’m missing something, but there’s no comma followed by the words “that is corporatist criminal who funds the right-wing” followed by another comma in between who and wants.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEN_o3xYfEE&w=640&h=390]

  5. @Gyges and OS

    Is puzzling a corporatist criminal who funds the right-wing? I didn’t think so.

    Why would you expect politicians to be honest about what they say when you won’t hold yourself to the same standard? It’s all about spin to win. Isn’t it?

  6. @OS

    So now it’s some discussion where the corporatist criminals who fund the right-wing want to defund NOAA? Or were there no corporatist criminals involved in that discussion?

    I can see that my comment from yesterday needs repeating.

    About NOAA cuts: Did you know the budget for NOAA was 3.8 billion in 2007? The 2012 budget (a decrease from 2011) is 5.4 billion. I think concern about a 40% increase in such a short period of time justifies taking a close look at the numbers to see if cutting back in some areas is doable.

    The NOAA budget went from $3.8 billion in 2007 to $5.5 billion in 2011. What the right wing wanted to do was cut it back $1.2 billion to $4.3 billion.
    They didn’t want to “defund” NOAA. They didn’t say that NOAA doesn’t play an important role. They looked at our debt and figured out that NOAA, unlike many other government funded programs, is an agency that had received huge budget increases in the last few years, should be able to survive the cuts.

    I also looked into your teacher story. I don’t believe it! I can’t find anything to support the teachers salary or her deductable. Why would you buy it? A story posted by an anonymous author, with nothing to support it, and you pass it around. Why?

  8. Yep, when I pointed out that Accuweather and Weather Underground already were in business for those that wanted to hire them, the discussion sort of fizzled after that.

  9. Noway,

    Puzzling for one, “NOAA and the National Weather Service should be disbanded to allow higher quality, competing private forecasting services to emerge.”

  10. NoWay, there was a discussion on this blog during Hurricane Irene about doing away with NOAA and turning it over to private industry. The meme was that private corporations could do weather better than the government.

  11. @pete,

    Bill Nye says the reason Al Gore uses racism is that “he grew up in world where racism was a big part of his life”.

    Really, Bill? I thought Al Gore grew up in the Fairfax Hotel along Embassy Row.

    I agree that the world is getting warmer. I also think that the science attributing that to anthropomorphic causes is based on insufficient data. In other words, it’s a lot like “shovel-ready jobs”.

  12. @OS

    “When you read the opinions and research of those who actually live this stuff, the reasons the corporatist criminals who fund the right-wing want to defund NOAA becomes abundantly clear.”

    Who wants to defund NOAA? I’ve never heard that before. Where did you come up with that?

  16. Gyges, it is like trying to get into a butt-kicking contest with a one-legged man. Sometimes the ludicrousness of the arguments have some entertainment value.

    Now if you really want to get ticked off, you might like to read this article. Here is the opening paragraph teaser:

    I am writing this to you from the ER at my hospital in Central Florida. I had chest pains at 3am last night so decided not to take any chances. I was taken by a nurse, then poked, stabbed, and prodded, then back to my assigned room. (I’ll be here overnight.) I was visited by a case worker, several nurses, a pharmacist, and of course, the bill collector. The bill collector was a nice, older lady that asked if I could pay all at once. I said yes. She told me it would be $100.00 with my insurance. Although I can afford it, I protested a little bit. I said it was $25 when I was here last (in 2001). She responded:

    “Good thing you aren’t a teacher.”

    You will have to go here to read the rest, but suggest you not have any sharp objects around–you might be tempted to gouge your eyes out.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/30/1011891/-Florida-ER:-Good-thing-you-arent-a-teacher!

  17. OS,

    But, BDAman quoted an opinion piece in the finical post, AND a blog.

    Surely two people’s short reviews about how a new study completely proves they are right are just as valid as the author of the study saying that the study doesn’t actually have anything to do with that. You have to be fair and balanced.

  19. How about paying some attention to the American Meteorological Society. That is the professional scientists and reporters who know more about the atmosphere and its behavior than physicists whose specialty seems to be high energy particles and physical chemistry.

    There will be inevitable climate changes from the greenhouse gases already added to the Earth system. Their effect is delayed several decades because the thermal inertia of the oceans ensures that the warming lags behind the driving forcing. For the next several decades there is a clear consensus on projected warming rates from human influences among different models and different emission scenarios.

    They draw quite different conclusions than the cherry picking of the right wing opinion writers:

    ….there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.

    Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.

    When you read the opinions and research of those who actually live this stuff, the reasons the corporatist criminals who fund the right-wing want to defund NOAA becomes abundantly clear.

  20. BDAman,

    Personally, I choose to believe the primary author of the study.

    “Kirkby shares Pierce’s caution. He argues that CLOUD’s results “say nothing about cosmic-ray effects on clouds” because the aerosols produced in the experiment are far too small to seed clouds.”

Comments are closed.