FOR THE MEDIA CHASERS: How not to do a phoner!

[Chris Sokol]

There are certain individuals on here that seem to take any opportunity that presents itself to take jabs at the Oklahoma NWSFO Office and media weather coverage...but guess what? It works...just look at the numbers. May 8th, 2003 is a perfect example. Any place else in the country you would have seen a large loss of life with a storm similar to the OKC Metro storm. Zero fatalities, and only 45 injuries. So you don't like the way we do it in Oklahoma? I personally don't care, because we are saving lives. The only other television markets that come close are Kansas and parts of Alabama (Tuscaloosa/Birmingham 33/40 and the WHNT, WAAY, and WAFF in Huntsville), and they are modeled in large part after the OKC market.

It's easy to sit in other parts of the country when it's not your family that relies on the "Oklahoma Way" of weather warnings and talk down the system.

1995-2007 Oklahoma tornado fatalities: 48. 40 of these occurred statewide on 5/3/99.

 

[rdale]

There are certain individuals on here that seem to take any opportunity that presents itself to take jabs at the Oklahoma NWSFO Office and media weather coverage...

Unless somebody deleted a post in the thread - you are the first to refer to taking jabs at OKC / OUN. What exactly did you see?

May 8th, 2003 is a perfect example. Any place else in the country you would have seen a large loss of life with a storm similar to the OKC Metro storm.

That got my curiosity up... What evidence do you have to prove that? Or even lean in that direction?

 

[Mikey Gribble]

Michael said...
"So maybe not your type of a "phoner" but I bet people were in the storm shelter. He has saved many of lives over the years ...What have you done lately???"

Easy there buddy. I don't have any problem with what the guy does. It's just not my cup of tea. I'm sure you probably weren't directing this at me anyways since I didn't really say anything negative about the guy, but you need to keep in mind that there are a lot of people on here (and participating in this thread) that carry their weight on reporting and warning the public (not talking about me).
I agree that it got people in their shelters. Hell I would have been in mine with a shovel trying to make it deeper if I heard that report lol. I'm just joking around so nobody take that seriously and get pissed off. If that's what the station wants and obviously they do since he's been chasing there a while, then it's fine by me. It's a private company just like any other and they reserve the right to run it as they see fit. It was an entertaining report, I'll give him that.
There's only one guy that I know of on here talking down the Oklahoma NWS offices and honestly I think he made some valid points, but I still disagree with him. I don't pay a lot of attention to warning verifications, but I do read the OKC office's forecast discussions some times and I think they do a fine job in that regard. IMO you need to error on the side of caution when issuing warnings and although it can be detrimental to issue too many that don't verify, it's the lesser of two evils IMO.

 

[Chris Sokol]

Unless somebody deleted a post in the thread - you are the first to refer to taking jabs at OKC / OUN. What exactly did you see?

The same thing that everybody has seen on tons of posts since this board was started. Same people every time, every year. And notice I didn't point this at anybody in particular.

That got my curiosity up... What evidence do you have to prove that? Or even lean in that direction?

Well, for starters how about the numbers from the rest of May 03.

 

[rdale]

And notice I didn't point this at anybody in particular.

I see that, which is why I asked, since I didn't detect your (or anyone elses) post to be critical of NWS or OKC TV.

Well, for starters how about the numbers from the rest of May 03.

So anyone that dies in a tornado outside of Oklahoma, does so because the TV market coverage isn't good enough? I have a hard time making that conclusion.

 

[Rick Smith]

Thanks for the "long ago" tornado stories... To clarify my point - there were about 75 nonverified warnings in OK this year, I don't think you can expect 70 of them to be verified a year down the road

There is no time limit for LSR's, and LSR's are not what makes a tornado "official". It is not "official" until it goes into StormData. It is not at all uncommon for the numbers of tornadoes or other severe events to change significantly from the time of the event until the official records are published. An LSR is not a necessary part of the process, and just because you do not see something LSR-d does not mean it did not happen!

Rick

 

[rdale]

There is no time limit for LSR's

Actually just found it - 7 days, not 3. Sorry about the confusion.

LSR's are not what makes a tornado "official"... An LSR is not a necessary part of the process, and just because you do not see something LSR-d does not mean it did not happen!

Of course. But if you haven't heard about the tornado within 7 days, odds are certainly against a large number showing up down the road.

Remeber an LSR is not "optional". If there's a tornado report 6 days and 23 hours later, an LSR is issued. So it's not like dozens of tornadoes are in hiding until StormData is published.

Here's the requirement:

[LEFT]WFOs will issue LSRs for severe weather events such as tornadoes,
waterspouts, large hail, thunderstorm/marine wind gusts and flash floods.
LSRs should be issued as close to real time
as possible. WFOs should issue LSRs to “summarize” a list of reports during
and/or at the end of an event (e.g. severe weather outbreak, winter
storm). Events reported more than seven days after occurrence will be
included in monthly Storm Data reports instead of LSRs.[/LEFT]

 

[rdale]

And to cheer up the OKC-haters, the Norman office had a very respectable 50% FAR this May. Although that's based on preliminary data, so can change.

 

[M Potter]

Of course. But if you haven't heard about the tornado within 7 days, odds are certainly against a large number showing up down the road.]

I would think there are more reports that come in after seven days. My opinion only though no facts.

And about the Networks the great thing about it is if you don't like it you can change the channel but chances are you will not see as much.

 

[rdale]

Not that this thread can go any farther off topic but I opened up my mailbox to find there's an interesting look at societal impacts from Super Tuesday's outbreak in the newest issue of Weather & Society Watch.

http://www.sip.ucar.edu/news/focus1.jsp

 

[Dennis Sherrod]

From a thread entitled: FOR THE MEDIA CHASERS: How not to do a phoner!

To: "......societal impacts from Super Tuesday's outbreak in the newest issue of Weather & Society Watch."

Maybe we can talk about the cost of eggs next.

 

[Rob Satkus]

The price of eggs have gotten out of control, due in part to the societal effects of the Super Tuesday outbreak, as well as poor phoner manners from the OKC media. And the Chicken Labor Union (CLU).

I need a beer.

RS

 

[rdale]

All we need to know about the CLU strike:

Blame Shane.

 

[Chris Sokol]

Oh...and as for the relationship between the media's coverage of severe weather and tornado fatalities...well, when a large segment of an area's population relies on the media for severe weather information (no warning sirens, and no...believe it or not, not everybody will buy a weather radio...no matter how much they are preached to), then there is a huge connection between media coverage of weather and storm fatalities and/or injuries. While a lot of people think that wall to wall coverage is overkill, what about the poor person who comes in from the barn and turns the tv on 30 seconds after a weather update? And no, the little maps and crawls don't always get the attention that they should.

And BTW...I was referring to both the media coverage and the NWSFO warning vs verification percentage arguments. I also realize that nothing that I say is going to change a set mind, but at least I have spoken my peace.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Now I want to see a funnel, so I can yell, "funnel in the air!!! funnel in the air!!!".