Why Does the Media Always Portray Storms As a Surprise...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike Smith
  • Start date Start date

Mike Smith

...or occurring "without warning"?

I have some thoughts here: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/04/unfortunate-headline.html

I have an analysis of the excellent forecasts and warnings here: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/04/tornadoes-unpredictable-hardly.html

Heck, this is the reason I wrote Warnings. We still don't seem to be able shake this "always wrong" reputation because the media seems determined to continue to pin it on meteorology.

That's my rant for the day.

Mike
 
I think many people are simply oblivious to what is going on around them. The warnings can be excellent and some people will still have no idea they are in potential danger. Remember the dashboard video from a police car showing a tornado in progress and a guy is out walking his dog like nothing is happening? That is why in some cases you hear the "there was no warning" comments. Some people have no clue about what is going on most of the time, even during life threatening weather events.
 
Well, as a meteorologist (I'm not one and am assuming you are), you don't want to become like King Canute. When severe weather in the form of thunderstorms is forecast then by the very nature of the beast, even when the forecast is spot on, then the majority of people won't be directly affected. Even if a town 10 miles away is hit their perception will be that the forecast said storms, hail, rain and maybe a tornado and all I had was sunny or overcast skies.

Of course, you know that doesn't mean that the forecast was wrong but how do you get the locals to believe the forecasters weren't crying wolf? I think it has to start early during people's education. Part of that education should include a healthy suspicion of media headlines and the nderstanding of their agendas.

Personally I wouldn't waste too much energy in the media's portrayal of storms as there's probably not a lot to be done in the short term
 
Tyler Yarnell said:
It sells better than jimbob was watching his NASCAR race and couldn't be bothered to take shelter, because Dale jr was in the lead.
Click to expand...

That's really not a far fetched scenario. People just think it won't affect them, therefore, they go on with their everyday lives.
 
Keep in mind, for a lot of people it was a surprise. The majority of the population still doesn't own a weather alert radio. So unless Jimbob was watching a network channel that could cut in with weather bulletins, or the Weather Channel, or his TV provider was one that does local video EAS (which if he has satellite they don't do that, it's only an option on wireline cable and some fiber) he would never have even known. There's also people that just never watch the news (I know some), so they have no idea that a line of severe storms is on its way. Then there's the ones that happen in the middle of the night when everyone's asleep. Weather alert radios should be required by law, just like smoke alarms. Only then could you say that there is no excuse for them to be surprised by severe weather. You are right, the prediction and warning system we have is great. But what good is the warning if people don't see or hear it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't compare weather radios and smoke alarms - they are EXTREMELY different and should NOT be required by law.

That being said - the storm system itself was not a surprise. If you use the fact that people don't watch the news, then EVERY weather phenomena should come by surprise. I would expect that if you asked most people, they heard about the threat but chose to ignore it.
 
For the people that don't watch the news.....they chose not to be warned. They knew the area was volatile for severe weather, but the ones that "had no warning" chose not to keep updated simply because they thought it wouldn't happen to them. I honestly believe this.
 
Tyler Yarnell said:
It sells better than jimbob was watching his NASCAR race and couldn't be bothered to take shelter, because Dale jr was in the lead.
Click to expand...

That is spot on.

It's the same reason they take a sympathetic viewpoint towards people who get foreclosed on for not paying their mortgage and getting in too deep by not being financially responsible. They probably don't want to upset their customer base by telling it like it really is, and the truth is most people don't want to hear it anyways.
 
I wouldn't say that they always portray storms as a surprise. I've seen plenty of news segments when people have taken action when they know that storms and/or tornadoes are heading towards them i.e. getting into a freezer in a restaurant. Granted that usually the segment has a dramatic spin to it.

I do agree that it is frustrating with the media portraying storms as a surprise, but I will say that when it comes to weather, egocentric thinking is where any alerts (forecasts, watches, warnings, outlooks, you name it) about weather goes to die. I don't know if there's much that can be done about it except educate people. Weather has been and always will be a mind-blowing conditioner for human beings.
 
rdale said:
Don't compare weather radios and smoke alarms - they are EXTREMELY different and should NOT be required by law.
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say that. They can both be considered life safety devices. They both are designed to alert you to potentially deadly conditions so you can take appropriate action, especially in the middle of the night. So what makes one different than another?
 
Jason Boggs said:
For the people that don't watch the news.....they chose not to be warned. They knew the area was volatile for severe weather, but the ones that "had no warning" chose not to keep updated simply because they thought it wouldn't happen to them. I honestly believe this.
Click to expand...


Because states like NC, VA, PA, NJ, NY are all tornadic hotbeds, right? Just like when the perfect storm comes along and spins up tornadoes in the PNW, they should've seen it coming, right? Come on. In the plains, midwest, and Dixie alley we know it can and will happen, and we prepare accordingly. People who have an interest in severe weather know it can happen anywhere at anytime of the year (just ask the people of Yazoo). But in places where tornadoes don't come around too often, it's not something people always have on their minds.
 
Yeah, people that live in a cave might have not heard of the threat coming, but you can't tell me that folks in NC had no idea that severe weather was on the way. I refuse to believe that. They just had that "it won't happen to me" mentality.

It wasn't like it was a surprise event. It was forecast days in advance. I just don't feel sorry for people who say they had no warning. It's just a lame excuse.
 
Lets face it: most Americans are more concerned about Dancing With the Stars and American Idol than they are about the true reality they live in. Most people don't even follow local media very closely, and if they do, especially concerning the weather, like Jason points out, they blow it off.

Case in point: while sitting at a Village on the morning of May 23, 2008 in Oakley KS , I listened to a number of locals talking about the fact they heard on the radio they might get some good thunderstorms and they kind of joked and laughed and blew it off like it was a typical KS day, and they wouldn't be affected.
 
Matt Tottle said:
I don't see how you can say that. They can both be considered life safety devices. They both are designed to alert you to potentially deadly conditions so you can take appropriate action, especially in the middle of the night. So what makes one different than another?
Click to expand...

I think in some states/areas prone to tornadoes it would make sense to do so. Trailler parks would be the first on the list I would think.

As for comparing smoke alarms to weather radios, again, depends where you live and what your living in.

The problem as I have read, is that they had the warnings/watches out in plenty of time. But did the people hear or receive them?
If they did, did they have a shelter to go to.

I thought they passed a law a few years ago requiring tornado shelters for trailer parks over "X" number of homes?
But then that might of been shelved and never saw the light of day.

Tim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

2008: "Lessons Learned," A Rookie's Retrospective
Replies
3
Views
5K
Chris Harrell
Back
Top