Hoax Reports

SECOND HOAX

Three days later, in Charleston, S.C., a caller on a telephone line reserved for National Weather Service storm spotters reported damage in Liberty County, Ga. Radar readings already had caused forecasters to issue a tornado warning, which gave urgency to the reports from the ground, so forecasters sent storm reports to the media.

um how is the second one a hoax?

If the guy called a report in and the weather service already had radar readings to verify the call, and they issued a warning how the hell is that a hoax?

This was a poorly written article and you can tell the writer failed to provide complete information, and almost undoubtedly failed to do his/her homework.

Did the call come from a guy who lived in Charleston, but was out chasing in Georgia? Did the phone call come from Charleston itself, and the guy was actually in Charleston at home? Was the phone call made from a home phone or a cell phone? We're missing information on the 2nd so called HOAX, thanks in large to poor journalism and failure to follow up on missing information.

Makes me now wonder if the entire article isn't a hoax...like most things that come from the drive-by media and their so called "journalists". :rolleyes:
 
um how is the second one a hoax?

If the guy called a report in and the weather service already had radar readings to verify the call, and they issued a warning how the hell is that a hoax?

This was a poorly written article and you can tell the writer failed to provide complete information, and almost undoubtedly failed to do his/her homework.

Did the call come from a guy who lived in Charleston, but was out chasing in Georgia? Did the phone call come from Charleston itself, and the guy was actually in Charleston at home? Was the phone call made from a home phone or a cell phone? We're missing information on the 2nd so called HOAX, thanks in large to poor journalism and failure to follow up on missing information.

Makes me now wonder if the entire article isn't a hoax...like most things that come from the drive-by media and their so called "journalists". :rolleyes:

Without reading the article, It would sound like there was not damage, or the damage was not as extreme as the report stated.
 
Hey Andrew
Maybe it`s the media covering up their own poor reporting ;)
We know how good their reports can be, don't we...lol

yes we sure do!!!!

I call bs on this entire article. they gave no facts, and didn't source any of their info either.

not to mention the author didnt even bother giving his name to the article.

hmmm...wonder why that is?
 
Just my two cents (because the media card was pulled and since I spent quite a number of years working in it) and find it very interesting how we are so quick to "hammer" someone nowadays when IMO we do not have all the facts/know the whole story. Years ago, stuff like this was basically just swept under the rug or not discussed in open....I assume to avoid the publicity.

No one on this thread probably knows or remembers the situation near/in Ryan OK on May 8, 1993. Without devulging any names, you had a "named" chaser reporting live on air of a devastating tornado near and in the town of Ryan OK. Reports not only were live on tv but also live through affiliate radio stations, one of which we were listening to. The "chaser" went on to inform that "the tornado was entering the city limts of Ryan and was doing massive damage" however, as we drove into Ryan we could not see any damage.....long story short, there was no tornado in the town of Ryan. No damage in the town of Ryan. No nothing in the town of Ryan.
Talk about crying wolf!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
um how is the second one a hoax?

If the guy called a report in and the weather service already had radar readings to verify the call, and they issued a warning how the hell is that a hoax?

This was a poorly written article and you can tell the writer failed to provide complete information, and almost undoubtedly failed to do his/her homework.

The article that appeared in the Dallas paper was only a portion of the original Associated Press article.

I know the reporter who wrote the article and he is very conscientious. His name did appear on the full-length article. The AP spent more than two weeks putting the article together and editing it.

As for the hoax part, the caller to the weather office reported more than two dozen houses damaged, numerous trees down, and three people injured. This caused an emergency response by county agencies. When they got to the scene, they found no damage. Sure sounds like a hoax to me.
 
The article that appeared in the Dallas paper was only a portion of the original Associated Press article.

I know the reporter who wrote the article and he is very conscientious. His name did appear on the full-length article. The AP spent more than two weeks putting the article together and editing it.

As for the hoax part, the caller to the weather office reported more than two dozen houses damaged, numerous trees down, and three people injured. This caused an emergency response by county agencies. When they got to the scene, they found no damage. Sure sounds like a hoax to me.

then it might behoove the AP to source "the" article with a link as a reference, so that the readers can get all of the facts, otherwise had you said nothing, based on the story given to me (of which the linked story clearly gives no link to the original story) I had to call bs. if i recall correctly is not customary to document your sources when writing a summation of another persons work? Or does the AP just think it has some special exempt status from the rules of responsible journalism?

be nice to be able to read the actual story.
 
The editor at each newspaper can edit an AP story however he or she wishes. Often, this is done just to make the article fit into the space available. With budget cutbacks due to reduced advertising, many newspapers have cut back on their "newsholes", the space allotted to articles. This can result in shorter articles in cases where the reader would like to know more about a particular subject.

Below is a link to a longer version of the AP article. I cannot say whether this is the entire article as originally transmitted by the AP, but it does have more details than the article published in Dallas.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/25650/
 
then it might behoove the AP to source "the" article with a link as a reference, so that the readers can get all of the facts, otherwise had you said nothing, based on the story given to me (of which the linked story clearly gives no link to the original story) I had to call bs. if i recall correctly is not customary to document your sources when writing a summation of another persons work? Or does the AP just think it has some special exempt status from the rules of responsible journalism?

be nice to be able to read the actual story.

You might want to do some research into the Associated Press.
 
Last week, a person with the supposed-name of Jeremiah Taylor submitted a false tornado report to the NWS office in Nashville, TN, and a false report of damage to KYTV (KY3) in Springfield, MO.

In the communication with NWS-Nashville, he was using an e-mail address of [email protected]

In the first instance, he left a call-back number to a phone number that was recently changed and was unlisted. In the second case, the phone number belonged to a couple in their 80's.

I know the chief meteorologist at KY3 has an appointment with the FBI scheduled.

If anyone has ever heard of this person, please let me know.
 
The editor at each newspaper can edit an AP story however he or she wishes. Often, this is done just to make the article fit into the space available. With budget cutbacks due to reduced advertising, many newspapers have cut back on their "newsholes", the space allotted to articles. This can result in shorter articles in cases where the reader would like to know more about a particular subject.

Below is a link to a longer version of the AP article. I cannot say whether this is the entire article as originally transmitted by the AP, but it does have more details than the article published in Dallas.

http://www.sunjournal.com/node/25650/

yes they can, but if they're not going to put a link to the original story, then why bother? all they did was put a watered down version which leaves readers going huh? where's all the info.

but thanks for putting that link up, after reading it, yes the AP summary is accurate, but without that 2nd link, and all the additional pertinent info, one could only be skeptical.

and that's pretty crazy that people are going to such lengths and reporting false reports of storms and damage.

hope they catch these people and they serve some time.

You might want to do some research into the Associated Press.

they just need to shore up their summarization/sourcing guidelines. I mean how hard it is to post a lousy link to the original story so one can get the "FULL STORY"?
 
they just need to shore up their summarization/sourcing guidelines. I mean how hard it is to post a lousy link to the original story so one can get the "FULL STORY"?

That is a pretty good idea. I often wonder when we're going to see more hyperlinks in online news stories. I think sometimes newspapers are afraid of directing people away from their website, lest they not come back.
 
It's one thing if it's someone trained or untrained who honestly, but mistakenly, thinks they see something and report it, that's an innocent mistake. On the other hand, deliberately and repeatedly filing false reports is, and always should be unacceptable. As I said in another thread, these things are no different than calling in a false fire alarm or police report. The people who deliberately do this deserve jail time and a heavy fine, especially if there is an emergency response related to it. I bet a good prosecutor might even go for public endangerment, if it's proven that a real emergency took place while the responders were tied up with a deliberate false alarm. In that case, cuff 'em and stuff 'em.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top