Another Episode Of "Sports Fans Getting Mad Over Tornado Warning Interrupting The Match"

So, remember the earlier Florida tornadoes? Well, it was well warned. WPEC CBC12 News did a coverage on the event (if i remember correctly) and it somehow, made people who watches the Bills match really mad.
These posts for instance has many replies and unfortunately, many of them consisted of Bills fans getting really really mad about the tornado warning and it gets even worse, some of them even threatened to put the producer in jail.
 
Yet, these same people would be the 1st ones to yell "I had no warning" if they had been hit by the tornado and blame the media.
 
As a sports fan, I have admittedly gotten incensed at this before. Please do not turn off what I'm watching without my consent, and not give me the ability to put it back on.

I understand safety concerns, but I once got this for a warning that wasn't even in my state. If people would rather put themselves in harm's way, maybe that's their choice.
 
So, remember the earlier Florida tornadoes? Well, it was well warned. WPEC CBC12 News did a coverage on the event (if i remember correctly) and it somehow, made people who watches the Bills match really mad.
These posts for instance has many replies and unfortunately, many of them consisted of Bills fans getting really really mad about the tornado warning and it gets even worse, some of them even threatened to put the producer in jail.
There's a typo that i made, it's supposed to be CBS12, not CBC12
 
As a sports fan, I have admittedly gotten incensed at this before. Please do not turn off what I'm watching without my consent, and not give me the ability to put it back on.

I understand safety concerns, but I once got this for a warning that wasn't even in my state. If people would rather put themselves in harm's way, maybe that's their choice.
Research has shown that people respond to warnings a lot better if there is confirmation, such as video of the tornado. So a crawl just is not the same thing as live reports with video and/or radar. Saving lives is more important than your football game. As to choice, whether you want a life-saving warning when the tornado is headed for your house or a football game without interruption, there is no choice - everyone gets what is broadcast, unless maybe you are watching online.
 
I think the only way around this is to subscribe to those additional premium packages that cost money... some of which, like @John Farley mentioned, are online. I can understand the frustration, but if it's that important to someone, they should be willing to spend a little extra for uninterrupted service.
 
As a sports fan, I have admittedly gotten incensed at this before. Please do not turn off what I'm watching without my consent, and not give me the ability to put it back on.

I understand safety concerns, but I once got this for a warning that wasn't even in my state. If people would rather put themselves in harm's way, maybe that's their choice.

I understand this to be honest. It would probably be better to say "this channel is switching to emergency weather information, please turn to channel XX for football coverage."
 
Having spent many years in local TV, I can tell you there are laws that require the station to break in for those types of warnings. I don't know the specifics, but they are required to do that.

I understand the anger, but in this day in age, there are SO MANY OPTIONS for you to stream these things on a platform that will not be interrupted. While the watch-to-interruption ratio is typically small enough where paying for a platform to avoid weather interruptions is bordering on the absurd, YOU DO HAVE THAT OPTION. Yes, the argument of "well if hits you, blah blah", but we know statistically that one person's specific odds in a DMA (DMA being the TV market, thus you likely receiving the interruption). to be hit by the tornado is very low.

While the technology exists for you to obtain your shows/entertainment via a wide range of options, the technology does NOT exist to interrupt only the viewers that are in the actual warning area. I know that in my Wichita station, we were able to target certain regions because of the towers, so a certain demographic on antenna could be targeted, but satellite viewers could not. That meant if we had warnings in say, southwest Kansas, we could target our receiver/tower in Garden City and those on that tower would receive the warning while folks in other regions would not be interrupted. But again, is you were on satellite, you got the warning. That's about as close as it gets.

Threatening replies, phone calls, and even the few that showed up at the station (yes, we got those), unacceptable, PERIOD. You lose all credibility the second you throw out anger-driver threats. There is no excuse for that, and I do not care if we interrupt your damn wedding, you do not threaten. Yes, it's mostly empty words from keyboard weinies, but it's still threats. Haven been exposed to those types of viewers on a pretty steady diet through my local TV years, I would push like hell to have substantial punishments thrown at those asshats. There's just no excuse for it. No one at the station gives a crap about your football game. No one does, it's the law, we have to do it, and whether you recognize that or not, there is nothing we can do to get around it.

And it's not fair, because if we DON'T do it, then suddenly we're on the opposite end of attacks. Truthfully, there is no win for it. But bottom line; it's the law, we have to do it. Secondly, threats of any kind are not and should not be tolerated. It sucks, I'm sorry your game got interrupted, but suck it up butter-cup, or do what you actually threaten to do and watch your crap on another platform. You have more ways to watch your crap without the interruptions than we do to avoid interrupting you. Go do that and shut the hell up.

Lastly, and this has been repeated plenty, but I'm gonna say it anyway cause it's true. Don't go whining about having no warning when it does finally happen to you.
 
Tony, I wholeheartedly agree with 99.9% of your statement. I have seen the emails and heard the angry phone calls you are referring to. However, I have spent time with many of the Tulsa area TV mets and do not recall any law stating a station has to broadcast any warning. In fact, I recall one friend/TV met that lamented and even resigned because he had to have the station GM approval to do any weather cut-ins (and the GM availability was sparse), including tornado warnings. Is the law you are referring to a Kansas law?
 
Tony, I wholeheartedly agree with 99.9% of your statement. I have seen the emails and heard the angry phone calls you are referring to. However, I have spent time with many of the Tulsa area TV mets and do not recall any law stating a station has to broadcast any warning. In fact, I recall one friend/TV met that lamented and even resigned because he had to have the station GM approval to do any weather cut-ins (and the GM availability was sparse), including tornado warnings. Is the law you are referring to a Kansas law?
It's an FCC law that requires stations all across the country to break in to protect lives and property.

The primary reason why television programming gets interrupted when there are tornado and severe thunderstorm warnings is b/c television stations are licensed by the FCC and required by law to provide timely information to the public to protect lives and property.
 
TV stations are required to serve the public interest, and stations do put examples of severe weather coverage in the station files that they are required to keep.

But two people above have said that "laws" require that TV stations break into programming.

Let's see some proof of exactly what is required, since none has been cited. What constitutes "breaking into programming" at a TV station? I suspect a crawl, a split-screen, or a voice-over would suffice for severe weather. Again, though, if someone believes that totally covering up programming is required, show us some proof by stating the specific wording of such a statute. And where would you draw the line for such severe weather coverage? Must be on the air wall-to-wall for a tornado warning? Must "break in" and cover up all programming for severe thunderstorm and flash flood warnings? (I know one local station that does not do the former. No local stations routinely do the latter.)

For those who don't know, some of the companies that own many TV stations now do not have a local master control operator. These functions are "hubbed" or centralized with someone in a city hundreds of miles away providing master control for a local station. This has necessitated some changes in severe weather coverage -- at the very least, requiring more time for someone doing a weather alert to get on the air.

I do know of a case some years back regarding a TV station in Alabama (don't know the city or station, though) that did not carry warnings and was visited by the Meteorologist in Charge of the NWS office serving that area. The station manager told the MIC that he would not carry the warnings and said he did not need a government bureaucrat telling him how to run his television station. (I did know the MIC involved.) Were I that MIC, I would not have made such a visit to a TV station.

When I was a Warning Coordination Meteorologist, I was asked by a TV station to go to another station and persuade them to change something in the way they covered severe weather (specifically, a map display). I did not do this. The stations must answer to the FCC; they don't need others telling them what to do.
 
Well, for some of us we feel the opposite. We don't give a crap about radar indicated hail or tornadoes. So maybe YALL go to another platform for that type of warning. Fairly ironic with the keyboard warrior response above. Youre always going to have a damned if you do damned if you dont response these days. Great example was the DFW networks cutting into a PGA major for a radar indicated tornado in Hillsboro/Waco area. So maybe the stations can suck it up butter cup as well.
 
Well, for some of us we feel the opposite. We don't give a crap about radar indicated hail or tornadoes. So maybe YALL go to another platform for that type of warning. Fairly ironic with the keyboard warrior response above. Youre always going to have a damned if you do damned if you dont response these days. Great example was the DFW networks cutting into a PGA major for a radar indicated tornado in Hillsboro/Waco area. So maybe the stations can suck it up butter cup as well.
My keyboard warrioring was for the death threats... and we do go to a multitude of platforms. You can as well :D
 
Oh too funny: Tulsa News 6 just announced they would not be cutting into the SuperBowl tomorrow for weather watches and warnings. (Winter storm moving into area.)

I wonder if they would take that stance if severe weather were in the forecast.

(I really don’t care one way or another but since this thread started I am more aware of people’s feelings on the subject, and it caught my attention when they made that announcement.)
 
Back
Top