Well that sucks. I don't know why - it is available to me.The video isn't available
Well that sucks. I don't know why - it is available to me.The video isn't available
The rule is, and this came about sometime in the 2010s I believe, is that until the NWS confirms a tornado, the media can not say it was a tornado, even if it is 100% clear from damage, photos, and/or video. I know, sounds too absolute.I uhhhhh....what? What do you mean by "alleged tornado"?
Whose "rule"?The rule is, and this came about sometime in the 2010s I believe, is that until the NWS confirms a tornado, the media can not say it was a tornado, even if it is 100% clear from damage, photos, and/or video
Using "boring" language doesn't get clicks and likes...The rule is, and this came about sometime in the 2010s I believe, is that until the NWS confirms a tornado, the media can not say it was a tornado, even if it is 100% clear from damage, photos, and/or video. I know, sounds too absolute.
What I don't like in the statement, and this happens much too often in the MSM and social media posts by individuals, is the generalization "leveled the community" or other absolute lines like "the town is completely gone." That is misleading. It implies the *entire* community/town was destroyed, which is *not* the case most of time. And damage photo/videos plainly show that a large part of Gteenfield was not damaged by the tornado. Think about people reading that headline with friends/family in said community/town. It makes it sound worse that it actually is. Typical over-hyping. Not every event is like Greensburg KS.
Sorry, "rule" was perhaps the wrong word to use. Either way, using "possible" or "alleged" for tornadoes until the NWS confirms them seems to taken hold in the MSM. It must have come from somewhere. Is there any marketing advantage (to draw more eyeballs, among other things) from a news standpoint by adding uncertainty to events that are completely clear they are a tornado from photos/video/damage? Or another possibility, does it make a difference from an insurance POV if a home is damaged/destroyed by straight-line winds or a tornado? Did the powers that be in the insurance business push to have "possible" or "alleged" used until the NWS confirms a tornado or not?Whose "rule"?
We have freedom of the press and the media can say anything about weather that it wants. Can't libel a cumulonimbus.
Sorry, "rule" was perhaps the wrong word to use. Either way, using "possible" or "alleged" for tornadoes until the NWS confirms them seems to taken hold in the MSM. It must have come from somewhere. Is there any marketing advantage (to draw more eyeballs, among other things) from a news standpoint by adding uncertainty to events that are completely clear they are a tornado from photos/video/damage? Or another possibility, does it make a difference from an insurance POV if a home is damaged/destroyed by straight-line winds or a tornado? Did the powers that be in the insurance business push to have "possible" or "alleged" used until the NWS confirms a tornado or not?
It's hard to believe these prefix modifiers for something as newsworthy and serious as a tornado just started in recent years in a vacuum.