Warren Faidley
Supporter
It was just a matter of time.......
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...dramatic-wind-lean-in/?utm_term=.8a58a149de5d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...dramatic-wind-lean-in/?utm_term=.8a58a149de5d
TWC "Busted For Over-Dramatic Coverage."
- Thread starter Warren Faidley
- Start date
Stan Rose
EF5
I've never been a fan of the Wx Channel's antics but of course hype and drama is what drives ratings so it is a bit of a catch-22 for media.
But it's kind of scary/sad seeing the outpouring of hate and cries of 'fake news' that I being dished out right now on Seidel. At most he may have been overacting a bit. Not exactly the nefarious lie that is part of the insidious liberal plot to institute socialism that the commenters make it out to be. He was, as the channel pointed out, standing on wet grass (right or wrong, doesnt matter to the issue) the winds in the video were probably 30-40 possibly with higher gusts which is clear watching the vegetation in the video. The people in the background were clearly walking with the wind which is much easier than standing, especially if you've been standing for hours on end and tired...and as anyone knows gusts can be highly variable even over 50 feet, and we have no idea from the video what may or may not be affecting the wind from the right side of the clip. So, I've never been one to defend Seidel or others but the criticism here is misguided, IMHO.
But it's kind of scary/sad seeing the outpouring of hate and cries of 'fake news' that I being dished out right now on Seidel. At most he may have been overacting a bit. Not exactly the nefarious lie that is part of the insidious liberal plot to institute socialism that the commenters make it out to be. He was, as the channel pointed out, standing on wet grass (right or wrong, doesnt matter to the issue) the winds in the video were probably 30-40 possibly with higher gusts which is clear watching the vegetation in the video. The people in the background were clearly walking with the wind which is much easier than standing, especially if you've been standing for hours on end and tired...and as anyone knows gusts can be highly variable even over 50 feet, and we have no idea from the video what may or may not be affecting the wind from the right side of the clip. So, I've never been one to defend Seidel or others but the criticism here is misguided, IMHO.
Warren Faidley
Supporter
Yes, I agree. Seidel is a very experienced hurricane chaser and I do respect him. I'm sure the pressure to perform stunts comes from upper management.
As I stated in the Hurricane Florence discussion, with these large build-ups that fizzle out (Cat 4 to Cat 1) the inertia is like trying to stop a freight train. Instead of saying, "Well the storm was certainly not we expected and there were no 20-foot storm surges," they have to justify the hype by finding the most extreme examples of what a boring Cat-1 can do. I think Seidel's event was overshadowed by the reporter who found a small piece of awning in Wilmington and acted like it was a life-threatening hunk of debris. The big story here is flooding, and the people suffering from that, not broken twigs and ankle deep water along the coast.
Edit: Looting reported in Wilmington reported by multiple media outlets. I'd love to see TWC go live there!
As I stated in the Hurricane Florence discussion, with these large build-ups that fizzle out (Cat 4 to Cat 1) the inertia is like trying to stop a freight train. Instead of saying, "Well the storm was certainly not we expected and there were no 20-foot storm surges," they have to justify the hype by finding the most extreme examples of what a boring Cat-1 can do. I think Seidel's event was overshadowed by the reporter who found a small piece of awning in Wilmington and acted like it was a life-threatening hunk of debris. The big story here is flooding, and the people suffering from that, not broken twigs and ankle deep water along the coast.
Edit: Looting reported in Wilmington reported by multiple media outlets. I'd love to see TWC go live there!
Last edited:
Stan Rose
EF5
yep, I totally agree, Warren. Even if I had been following the storm closely I might have still expected Florence to come in a lot stronger than it did. Intensity forecasts are notoriously tough. And unfortunately the message that goes along with the forecasts (that regardless of storm intensity, the flooding will be catastrophic) gets lost in the hype.
After I responded a couple of Seidel's colleagues defended him by noting he was standing in a gustier location due to a nearby building. Of course that begs the question why he has to stand in the windiest spot (obviously for ratings).
After I responded a couple of Seidel's colleagues defended him by noting he was standing in a gustier location due to a nearby building. Of course that begs the question why he has to stand in the windiest spot (obviously for ratings).
Warren Faidley
Supporter
Inland flooding is very difficult to cover. Although it's deadly and destructive, no one wants to cover it. Most of the time, the images are not all that exciting. Very static. Anyone with a camera can shoot it so the stock / news value is very low.
TWC needs their own helicopter. Maybe a surplus black hawk painted baby blue with a big TWC logo. Seidel and Cantori can fast rope down and report. I'd pay to watch that!
TWC needs their own helicopter. Maybe a surplus black hawk painted baby blue with a big TWC logo. Seidel and Cantori can fast rope down and report. I'd pay to watch that!
Here’s another one. Anderson Cooper of CNN standing in a ditch to make it look like the water is much deeper than it is.
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...o_anderson_cooper_of_cnn_pretending_to_be_in/
This is a better picture than the first
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09...looding-meanwhile-firefighters-spoof-tv-news/
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...o_anderson_cooper_of_cnn_pretending_to_be_in/
This is a better picture than the first
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09...looding-meanwhile-firefighters-spoof-tv-news/
Last edited:
rdale
EF5
Todd - based on the rough level of water on the building, it doesn't seem like he's too far off? Plus that's from Ike - so not sure that applies today 
Yep, I did see after I shared that it was from a previous storm, but I still think it’s funny. Not as funny as the original video clip in this thread though....
Joey Ketcham
EF4
I read a story about this just earlier today, it wasn't that Anderson Cooper was standing in a ditch to mislead the public... he was doing a demonstration of some sort, and was walking around and in the broadcast it was clear he was in a ditch, something they didn't hide.
Jeff House
Supporter
The Seidel video is actually tragic from a psychology point of view. How many people will ignore the next warning? Any kind of warning such as Tornado!
More broadly, it feeds the fake news crap. I'm all for social media freedom, but we have to get back to making decisions based on well thought out news and opinion pieces (both sides) plus journals. Founders assumed we would, but alas I'm off-topic.
Finally I really agree coverage should focus on the deadly water, both storm surge and fresh water flooding. TWC high water mark this storm (pun intended) was that green screen demo with the on-camera met drowning in storm surge. Very helpful!
More broadly, it feeds the fake news crap. I'm all for social media freedom, but we have to get back to making decisions based on well thought out news and opinion pieces (both sides) plus journals. Founders assumed we would, but alas I'm off-topic.
Finally I really agree coverage should focus on the deadly water, both storm surge and fresh water flooding. TWC high water mark this storm (pun intended) was that green screen demo with the on-camera met drowning in storm surge. Very helpful!
Warren Faidley
Supporter
TWC's reputation was damaged years ago. I will say they are generally doing a much better job. I did hear a few inaccurate statements regarding Florence and hurricanes in general during the coverage. Too bad they don't bring back the Star Trek "red alert" they used in the old days when something big was happening. (lol) Anyone remember that?
rdale
EF5
Probably none. There is zero evidence that would indicate that someone hearing a tornado warning for their location and seeing dark clouds approach would NOT shelter because they saw a TWC snip on Facebook where the TV met was overhyping hurricane wind gusts.
Jeff House
Supporter
Self evident to you and me; however, many people will not act without solid multiple confirmations. Of course dark clouds would help, and a live-stream of a tornado certainly closes the deal, but sometimes it's still pretty bright when the warning is issued.
Can you site a source showing zero evidence? I have read several AMS papers and seen several presentations showing evidence people act only after confirming the threat, and that the threat is personal to themselves.
Can you site a source showing zero evidence? I have read several AMS papers and seen several presentations showing evidence people act only after confirming the threat, and that the threat is personal to themselves.
rdale
EF5
That's not how evidence works If you want to claim that people might die because they saw a TV meteorologist overemphasizing winds in a hurricane, you'll need some backing. The first half of your post is spot-on. People do want to seek out confirmation before acting.
If you want to claim that people might die because they saw a TV meteorologist overemphasizing winds in a hurricane, you'll need some backing. The first half of your post is spot-on. People do want to seek out confirmation before acting.
Jeff House
Supporter
OK maybe the burden of proof is on me for my first post claim. Good point about science and research in general..
However I think we agree about the sociological studies. Therefore, my conclusion is not a reach given those studies. In fact my hypothesis is a reasonable application of past research, and current skepticism of the media. Technically though, yes I have to provide the evidence to confirm. Cheers!
That's not how evidence works
However I think we agree about the sociological studies. Therefore, my conclusion is not a reach given those studies. In fact my hypothesis is a reasonable application of past research, and current skepticism of the media. Technically though, yes I have to provide the evidence to confirm. Cheers!
Last edited:
