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

[Todd Renshaw]

I don't really fault the general public for not paying attention. Life sometimes gets in the way. For a given location, these are rare occurrences. Not everyone listens to the radio or watches tv or even knows how to read the sky. (We are the exceptions.)

But it does bug me when the tv media uses the "without warning" line. It's just sensationalist, lazy, cliched copywriting and I suppose, reinforces that one shouldn't bother to pay attention during storm outbreaks. But on the other hand, how many times have you heard something like, "if you're not watching the Channel X First Forecast team, your family could end up DEAD." So maybe the "warning" vs. "no warning" messages cancel each other out.

 

[rdale]

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?

Because one has a nearly 0% rate of false alarms, and the other has a 70% chance of alerting you for something that doesn't even exist (i.e. no tornado forms) and then throw in another 29% chance that if one exists it won't hit your house. If a smoke alarm sounds, odds are extremely high that you have a fire and ignoring could prove fatal. If the NOAA Weather Radio sounds, odds are extremely high that nothing will happen if you ignore.

 

[Jeff Duda]

I don't have any anecdotes or straight up stats/facts, but I sense that some of this is the age-old attention-getter headlines that are getting passed down from one journalism generation to the next. But, I also think that at least a small, but growing, and significantly important, portion of this issue is what others have said in that people get the warning but choose to ignore it. I think an outbreak like this should show people that weather radios, warning sirens, and all other forms of warning dissemination media are important, but just that there may be regional biases.

 

[Dave Gallaher]

Most people don't even follow local media very closely

This is true, and due in large part to the annoying lack of quality content in most local media and its corollary, the quantity of commercials one must endure in order to sift and find something of value. Local weather is the exception in regards to the content.

 

[Dave Gallaher]

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.

I don't really fault the general public for not paying attention. Life sometimes gets in the way. For a given location, these are rare occurrences. Not everyone listens to the radio or watches tv or even knows how to read the sky. (We are the exceptions.)

But it does bug me when the tv media uses the "without warning" line. It's just sensationalist, lazy, cliched copywriting and I suppose, reinforces that one shouldn't bother to pay attention during storm outbreaks. But on the other hand, how many times have you heard something like, "if you're not watching the Channel X First Forecast team, your family could end up DEAD." So maybe the "warning" vs. "no warning" messages cancel each other out.

Sorry--haven't figured out the multiquote protocol in the new bb yet.

I agree here in general. On the other hand--and maybe it's because I live in Dixie Alley--just being in contact with other people in daily life normally offers alerts to possible bad storms. I hear it all the time when having a conversation at the grocery or in an office--'watch out for the weather later on' etc. I'd bet that far more people avoided those situations in NC than were impacted by them, and of course one can't rule on direct hits on homes and businesses. In my entertainment job, I've often asked proprieters what the severe weather protocol is, and many will have a definite plan to put into effect if a crowded venue is under threat.

 

[Wes Carter]

Let's face it, even for people who totally ignore all watches and warnings a vast majority will not be harmed in any way. People will go on living their lives as if nothing ever happened. Statistically there are things they are more concerned with, like doing their job, studying for an exam, tending to their elderly mother, taking their sick baby to the doctor, etc... There are things going on in most people's lives that have a direct and immediate effect on their and their loved ones' well being. I really don't think this should be an issue of 'the media is to blame' vs 'I don't feel sorry for these apathetic idiots'. It's a matter of weighing odds for each individual, albeit on a subconscious level for many if not most.

 

[Melissa Jablonski]

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.

I know what you mean. I used to alert My sisters to storm threats. They tried to do an intervention on my " severe weather anxiety problem" . I think you know what I told them.

 

[David Conaway]

One problem that I see in my area is that when the SPC issues a moderate or high risk for our region, most of the time the local tv meteorologist does not emphasize that this day has the potential to be more dangerous than a slight risk or typical thunderstorm day. This seems to be the rule and not the exception, but this might not be the case in other regions.. We all know that there can be severe weather in a slight risk area but the coverage might not be as great.

As many have indicated in the above posts, most of the general public does not follow the weather. People just want to know what the temperature will be and if it will rain. Once a city,town or metropolitan area does get hit by a significant severe weather event, then the media seems to go into overkill everytime there is a threat of thunderstorms.

I always tell my family, friends and co-workers when there is a threat for severe weather. Most of the time the people that I speak with have no idea that there is even a threat for severe weather.

 

[Tim Shriver]

Because one has a nearly 0% rate of false alarms, and the other has a 70% chance of alerting you for something that doesn't even exist (i.e. no tornado forms) and then throw in another 29% chance that if one exists it won't hit your house. If a smoke alarm sounds, odds are extremely high that you have a fire and ignoring could prove fatal. If the NOAA Weather Radio sounds, odds are extremely high that nothing will happen if you ignore.

I would agree with this for the most part. But at the same time, it's better then having nothing.

I do think the NWS could work with electronics manufactures and produce a WxRadio that works
with the current storm track information contained in the SVR and TOR products.
Put a GPS in the WxRadio and have the radio decode the path from said products
and alert from that data.

Crying wolf has it's issues, but if the cry is given and the clouds look dark, chances are the wolf is near.

Tim

 

[Wes Carter]

I would agree with this for the most part. But at the same time, it's better then having nothing.

I do think the NWS could work with electronics manufactures and produce a WxRadio that works
with the current storm track information contained in the SVR and TOR products.
Put a GPS in the WxRadio and have the radio decode the path from said products
and alert from that data.

Crying wolf has it's issues, but if the cry is given and the clouds look dark, chances are the wolf is near.

Tim

Since most weather radios will be used in one place only GPS is mostly unnecessary. You can just program in your SAME code and it works pretty much that way. Granted, it narrows the path down to a town or county for the most part, but before it was an entire region so the process is much better. But it still boils down to what RDale said: 99% of the time you get a warning nothing devastating is going to happen.

Tim, I realize you might already know about SAME code programming, but I thought it might be a good time to mention it since there might be a lot of newer chasers and enthusiasts reading this.

 

[Jason Foster]

I would agree with this for the most part. But at the same time, it's better then having nothing.

I do think the NWS could work with electronics manufactures and produce a WxRadio that works
with the current storm track information contained in the SVR and TOR products.
Put a GPS in the WxRadio and have the radio decode the path from said products
and alert from that data.

Crying wolf has it's issues, but if the cry is given and the clouds look dark, chances are the wolf is near.

Tim

Smart phone technology is where it's at. Put the energy into an application that works there...GPS is almost always already on board. Consider the technology already associated with the foursquare bit. I few mods and such...BAM there ya go.

 

[John Wetter]

Smart phone technology is where it's at. Put the energy into an application that works there...GPS is almost always already on board. Consider the technology already associated with the foursquare bit. I few mods and such...BAM there ya go.

You guys should Google CMAS. It's on the way...

Now, jus tto get that FAR down to a better number...

 

[Justin Turcotte]

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.

You kidding me? Dale Jr in the lead? A better chance of being hit by a tornado.

I suspect "without warning" is simply media cliche. We only have to go back about 25 years and there were no WSR-88D's sitting around and POD was a mere 30%. A quick glance at some data suggests we were pushing 80% last decade.

A first on scene beat reporter is not going to have a lot of time to prepare the story in a storm damage situation and it would be easy to fall back on cliche and fluff to fill the spot. I'm guessing Joe NASCAR is also quick to revert to cliche when on the spot in front of the camera. Further, Joe NASCAR may have heard the warning but the storm/tornado itself could still come on extremely fast rather than a gradual acceleration of wind (i.e. without warning).

To the contrary I have seen well versed OCM's note NWS lead time in their post storm discussion.

 

[hduran]

I recently came across a local man who explained his differences with KRMG Tulsa's text alert weather service. He said he received one too many alerts last week when we had that storm system pass through Tulsa. The cell that passed over Tulsa was the same one that produced a tornado several miles away in Stroud and stayed tornado warned for most of its track through the rest of NE OK. Warning people like this of the possibility of a dangerous storm coming their way seems like more of an inconvenience to them than a real threat. But you can't help those who can't help themselves.

 

[Melissa Jablonski]

Smart phone technology is where it's at. Put the energy into an application that works there...GPS is almost always already on board. Consider the technology already associated with the foursquare bit. I few mods and such...BAM there ya go.

Jason I see your point. Some people like me don't want and won't use smart phones though. I don't like gadgets.