Live media coverage of severe weather events

[Paul Knightley]

Hi all - I hope this is the correct forum for this discussion.

Despite not being a resident of the Plains or the USA, the advent of the internet has meant that anyone around the world with a suitable connection can watch streaming TV stations - thus, I quite often find myself watching the live coverage of severe weather events in the USA.

For our 2 week chasecation, we are, of course, around the severe weather, and it's interesting to see how the actual weather (as seen in person) and the events around it are unfolding compared with how the media coverage of these events suggests they are unfolding.

To cut a long story short, it is my opinion that, quite often, the coverage of tornado events on TV stations is confusing, to say the least. Whilst chasing the El Reno tornado, we had a TV station's feed on in the car (of course, we were monitoring our position, etc etc, using all the standard radar tools, and our eyes/ears/experience - the coverage was merely an extra). At times, the information, especially from the station's chasers in the field, bordered on the hysterical - OK, that might be a bit strong, but hopefully you get my drift. There was a confusing array of road numbers, intersections, timings, interruptions by the chasers, etc, which made actually understanding where the tornado was, I think, hard to work out. As I say, this is my opinion of how a non-chaser might feel when listening/watching the footage.

I'm not suggesting I know what the solution is - indeed, I think a lot more study into how to best get across this information should be undertaken - I just think the NWS warnings get lost within the TV coverage, and the basic information of where the tornado is, where it's going, and at what speed/time, is not clear.

Perhaps not having any live chaser reports 'on air' would make the message clearer from the meteorologist - OK, the ratings must soar if you can put live images on from a helicopter or car, but the whole point of this is to protect people, surely?

Anyway, views would be welcome!

 

[Mike Johnston]

Well, I think a great deal of the effectiveness of live coverage falls to the chief meteorologist at the TV station, or whatever meteorologist is in charge at the time. Since time is critical, that person has to be succinct, direct and specific in moderating the coverage. Some do this better than others. As for chasers in the field, you've got to force them to provide the information required - even if that means cutting them off if need be. Remember, not all of these chasers are necessarily adept at communications. So, it falls on the "head guy" to keep things under control and everyone in line. I actually watched streaming coverage of Gary England on the 5/31 event and thought he did a pretty good job of doing this. He even scolded his chasers for getting too close, and also cut them off to have them clarify exactly where they were located before continuing with their descriptive report. I think most TV mets have intimate knowledge of their local geography and do a pretty good job of using that knowledge in their coverage. Do the TV guys get a bit excited in live coverage of severe weather? Of course they do, but I think a lot of that kind of comes with the territory.

 

[rdale]

Every study ever done shows that people respond to a picture or other confirmation (chaser audio) of a tornado than they do a TV weather guy telling you radar indicates a tornado.

 

[mkavulich]

it is my opinion that, quite often, the coverage of tornado events on TV stations is confusing, to say the least.

I wholeheartedly agree, though it's a region-specific problem in my opinion. I am constantly disappointed at the lack of actual information given out by Oklahoma City media. It's a completely amateur effort, with very few actual instructions to residents on what they should do. I watched essentially all the news 9 live coverage on 5/20 and 5/31, and I did not ONCE hear meteorologists tell people to get to the lowest interior room in their building, or tell people what to do if they were in a vehicle or mobile home. They kept having chasers butt in over the lead meteorologist to yell something stupid or unhelpful (like "I can see it! It's right in front of me!" without ever mentioning where they were). They would constantly say that people need to "get underground", which is completely vague and unhelpful (and directly led to at least seven deaths). When they showed live shots they would rarely mention where the camera was or what direction they were facing. They would hardly even mention which specific areas were under a warning!

I contrast this with the spectacular coverage by news stations in Alabama during the April 27, 2011 outbreak. He succinctly described exactly where the threats were, exactly what people should do (and NOT do), and even as the Tuscaloosa tornado was being shown live they were making every effort to tell people under threat from other storms to take shelter. No media chasers screaming bull about the EF5 wedge they're watching "right in front of me". No cutting to seven different reporters who were confused about what they were supposed to be saying. Just concise, direct information for the public to keep themselves safe.

 

[Jeff Wright]

We have some good weathermen here. The CBS WIAT broadcast was the most heart wrenching.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

You're talking about a state that has helicopter coverage of anything that falls out of the sky. It's a ratings competition here in many ways for the media, and you have to take into account that people in Oklahoma are usually more in tune with what's going on in the weather than maybe anywhere else in the world, so the need to tell people what to do is secondary to knowing where it is. There are also well known chasers for the stations here that have become very trusted and are very good at describing what is going on, and there is something about some of them that do make it somewhat entertaining. I guess you can say we are used to it.

What really had people on edge on May 31st is having the May 20th EF-5 just 11 days earlier. This had everyone pretty rattled including the TV mets, and it probably showed in the coverage of that day.

 

[bradjones]

Let me tell you this about our coverage here. I think the coverage here is great. No where else in the country is going to have better coverage of the storms than here in Oklahoma. Gary England at least here in Oklahoma is considered a weather legend. I guarantee you a tornado will not sneak up on you here in this State unless you live under a rock. People tend to respond to things visual like video of storm coming and for the most part people do heed warnings. You must remember we had a 2 week peroid of violent storms and let me tell you everyone here in the state was on edge. It was the talk at the morning water cooler everywhere o went people were talking about the storms. I'm thankful for the coverage in our state

 

[Warren Faidley]

I've discussed this in detail on my blog.

Although live television coverage saves lives, no doubt, there are three issues it creates beyond the benefits.

The first problem is a growing tendency for people to wait and see "the tornado on TV before deciding on what action to take. I've had people in and near OKC tell me if "The tornado does not look dangerous on TV, they will likely not take immediate action. Viewers are gaining a knowledge of "rope tornado" vs. "wedge tornado," but they lack the knowledge to make critical shelter choices based on visual references only.

The second issue of course is live TV coverage inspires others to go out and "chase." Especially locals.

There is also the issue of competition. News stations are trying to get closer and closer to provide the "best live coverage." (Most of us know you don't need to be 100 yards away to "spot" a tornado.) The up-close action is for drama, ratings and production value. The media is also encouraging people to go out and shoot footage or take pictures. This includes national media. In my opinion, it does not help when the media embraces close-up behavior. TWC may have been enchanted with getting too close.

W.

Addition: I have to agree with others who have noted that all the close-up drama wastes precious time that could be devoted to more detailed information that might contribute to saving lives. Good points I never considered.

 

[rdale]

In the midst of a disaster is too late to tune into TV for guidance.

 

[Elaine Spencer]

"No media chasers screaming bull about the EF5 wedge they're watching "right in front of me".

The fact that Dixie Alley isn't the best chase territory may have been a blessing in disguise in this case. Also notice that ABC 33/40 uses stationary tower cams, rather than choppers, to show the tornadoes. Normally this is a disadvantage since tower cams are limited in range, but in this case, it might have helped keep the coverage "uncluttered" and to the point. You can also tell that James Spann and the other guy speaking (don't know his name) know their viewing area like the back of their hands, and can cite exact locations (roads, shopping malls, BBQ joints, etc.) that are threatened.

I suspect that the "hysterical" coverage Paul cites is driven more by The Weather Channel and other national outlets, which some (not all) local stations try to copy.

 

[Tarmo Tanilsoo]

Am I understanding some suggestions right that TV stations should fall back to 88D and not show live pictures at all? Not sure I'd be comfortable with that. Perhaps they should go with the skycam route like they have in Alabama(although for example ABC 33/40 in Birmingham itself has a few chasers out there).

Or you could do like we do in Europe... no coverage at all. Yes, you can have a tornado in a large city but TV stations will be showing reruns of Desperate Housewives.

 

[mikedeason]

I'm not sure anyone is arguing against using all available resources, including live shots. Overall, severe weather coverage has much more of an impact because of such things than it did 20-30 years ago. But there is definitely a fine line between conveying useful information to viewers during a breaking weather event and unintentional sensationalizing to a degree in which that information gets mired down in the awe of what is happening.

To me, that happens when you have multiple chaser reports and live streams coming from a single storm and conflicting information starts to be conveyed to the viewers. The best TV mets know how to nip this in the bud and take over the coverage with a relative calmness and assurance which is less likely to induce any sort of needless panic in their viewers yet getting across the seriousness of what is happening with an appropriate call to action.

I'm probably biased, but I think the way in which James Spann and ABC 33/40 handled the 4/27/11 is a pretty good lesson in how to handle a major severe weather event, especially one in which communities in a fairly wide geographic area within the market area are at imminent risk.

 

[Mike Johnston]

In the midst of a disaster is too late to tune into TV for guidance.

While I agree that your personal safety plans should be made long before the tornado arrives, there are some instances when the TV met is in a position to give advice/reminders. One example is when there is a relatively long warning lead time. Often, the TV met will just truncate the call-to-action and say "take your tornado precautions" and leave it at that - which I think is completely appropriate when time is very critical; their primary job is to describe the location and direction of movement. On the other hand, if there is ample time to convey safety instructions that doesn't hurt. In the Greensburg tornado, Dave Freeman of KSNW (Wichita NBC) slowed down and paused to give very specific instructions to any kids viewing who might be home alone. Greensburg was just a sitting duck at that point, but still had 10-15 minutes to take cover. I thought Freeman's actions were very thoughtful and might even have saved some lives.

 

[rdale]

Agreed, and I would never say to not give directions. The tone of this thread was that they need to reduce chaser chatter and increase safety chats and I disagree.

 

[Paul Knightley]

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone. My view is certainly that every aid possible should be used to help get the message across, but the message is the key. As long as people get it, and understand what their best course of action is, then the problem is on the way to being solved.