Why does the media avoid negative stories about chasing / chasers?

[William Monfredo]

I think we may be over-valuing how much people would actually care about storm chasers.

Yes, Brett. Over the Memorial Day Weekend, hundreds can die on the highways. So, just how important are we?
Actually, I'm glad we don't see a proliferation of hit pieces for many of the reasons that we see presented here.

 

[Dan Robinson]

The pattern with most news articles these days is to lead/headline the story with something that inflames anger, then either omit or reserve for the last paragraph the facts that would reveal that it's not that big of a deal worthy of outrage or not a story at all. It's well-known that most people share/ingest news articles without reading the entire thing or even anything beyond the headline, so a writer can do that then say "I *did* tell the whole story" with plausible deniability to what the real-world effect ended up being. This pattern is present with nearly every single article seen today on all sides of the spectrum. Social media is the driver of this, it's not all malintent - again, it's the only pattern that allows an outlet to keep earning revenue to pay their bills. But, it helps lead to and maintain the divide we see today where either side 1.) isn't even aware that good arguments against their position even exist at all and 2.) the belief that the other side is this irredeemable evil that isn't worth listening to.

So, this means that a story about chasers will lead with headlines about how we are causing all of these problems, blocking emergency responders, killing innocent people and so on, then the part about that only being a tiny contingent of chasers will be reserved for the last paragraph that less than 1% of readers will ever get to. Again, there are good writers out there that have actually published balanced stories on this (Ian Livingston is one) but they are outliers.

The other thing I observed with some of the recent events/incidents is the general public's perception of the community is that there are two kinds of chasers: those who are out there to save lives, and those out there for thrills. They perceive the 'life saving' chasers like first responders where the dangerous driving maneuvers are fully justified. They then say all of the rest of us - the 'thrill seekers' - should stay home, stop criticizing the "life savers" and get out of their way. What side of that coin you and I will end up on is the luck of the draw rather than any objective criteria. You're more likely to be seen as a 'life saver' if you're a popular live streamer, are already famous, have a huge social media following or chase for a TV station. But you're basically one misunderstood social media post or quote away from finding yourself on the wrong side of that public opinion dichotomy, whether it is really deserved or not.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The entire point of journalism, as it was constantly pounded into my head by editors back in the day, is to find stories.

Since others have mentioned mountain climbing, a story about a top climber who endangers the people of Nepal and other climbers would be fascinating. Just because many of us are jaded as a result of being exposed to this on a regular basis is understandable. Storm chasing is common news now days, especially with the upcoming release of Twisters.

 

[JamesCaruso]

I don’t feel like the upcoming release of Twisters is on the radar screens of too many people, at least not yet. When I mention having just come back from storm chasing, just like always people say, “Like Twister?” I say, “There’s a new one coming out, you know” and nobody seems to be aware.

 

[Randy Jennings]

News reporting has changed a lot since I was a journalism minor in college 3 decades ago (was a Computer Science major and I choose to do that as even then the writing was on the wall about the decline of journalism). Newsroom budgets are much smaller than they used to be. Print media newsrooms were hit the hardest (many aren't even around today). This has led to many reporters forced to become generalists and reporting on lots of things instead of just having a single beat. This lack of specialization results in a "jack of all trades, master of none". They never really learn the in depth nuances of a topic like the beat reporters did. Factor than in with reduced staffing and many news stories are just repackaged press releases. Often bad or no reporting isn't intentional, it is the result of low budgets, overworked reporters, and lack of knowledge of the subjects they cover.

I used a pretty big brush there, and I know there are reporters out there that are good in spite of the obstacles they face. The issue for them becomes reckless driving storm chasers just doesn't seem as interesting to their employers as politicians gone bad, toll roads ripping you off, and all these other stories you see these days. Even outlets that are aware of this many choose not to report on it because they depend on free video/pictures from chasers and many of them actually have their own chasers, some of whom are the worse offenders. As the old adage goes - don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Even outlets that are award of this many choose not to report on it because they depend on free video/pictures from chasers and many of them actually have their own chasers, some of whom are the worse offenders. As the old adage goes - don't bit the hand that feeds you.

Another aspect is that sometimes the media is part of the story. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Kelly and Randy were associated with TWC at the time and I remember Bettis' vehicle getting rolled during El Reno where they were lucky there were no fatalities. TWC has been affiliated with several big name broadcasting companies over the years and I can't imagine that it was (or is) in their best interests to shine a light on chasing issues/behavior given their history.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Another aspect is that sometimes the media is part of the story. As mentioned earlier in the thread, Kelly and Randy were associated with TWC at the time and I remember Bettis' vehicle getting rolled during El Reno where they were lucky there were no fatalities. TWC has been affiliated with several big name broadcasting companies over the years and I can't imagine that it was (or is) in their best interests to shine a light on chasing issues/behavior given their history.

This is a good point. I also believe the scientific community is very protective of their own, even if the offender(s) are total ass clowns. It's not really up to the "general" chasing community to bring up all the bad behavior. I rarely (if ever) see the upper-level scientific community call out the same behavior we are discussing here. In fact, I've even seen some professionals in the severe weather business revel in the bad behavior, bewitched by the drama when they should know better. Again, it's either cowardliness, uninformed admiration or wanting to avoid the lunatic division of the fan base.

 

[Jesse Risley]

As someone who works in the field part-time, albeit on the weather end, I tend to agree that it has more to do with the audience and numbers than anything else. This topic is important or engaging to almost everyone here. It's likely not that imperative to say 200+ million Americans who might regularly or occasionally watch or read a major (legacy) media outlet. This is a specific problem that almost exclusively impacts the so-called rural areas of "flyover country." It has no sustained impact on core population centers in major metropolitan areas nor will it ever impact the majority of Americans. It may be of interest to readers in a targeted market like OKC, Wichita, or Dallas, for example, but on a larger scale, I don't see it as an issue that many readers or viewers care about. I've seen WaPo articles on weather generate a lot of discussion in the comments section, and those tangentially touch on storm chasing from time to time, but none of them really strike as highly memorable pieces of journalism because broader weather and climate stories generate far more engagement.

 

[Jamie H]

The entire point of journalism, as it was constantly pounded into my head by editors back in the day, is to find stories.

Since others have mentioned mountain climbing, a story about a top climber who endangers the people of Nepal and other climbers would be fascinating. Just because many of us are jaded as a result of being exposed to this on a regular basis is understandable. Storm chasing is common news now days, especially with the upcoming release of Twisters.

No doubt the changing landscape has killed a lot of this off too. Time was outlets could take some risk in letting a journalist spend a lot of time on a story, knowing there would be no payoff until months later. Or they'd send someone to Nepal to find out about that climber. I remember S1 of Storm Chasers featured what was supposed to be a journalist who was there for a feature, though I never could find any evidence of it.

But today? Chances for funding for a big, in depth feature, are scarce.

 

[Boris Konon]

The pattern with most news articles these days is to lead/headline the story with something that inflames anger, then either omit or reserve for the last paragraph the facts that would reveal that it's not that big of a deal worthy of outrage or not a story at all. It's well-known that most people share/ingest news articles without reading the entire thing or even anything beyond the headline, so a writer can do that then say "I *did* tell the whole story" with plausible deniability to what the real-world effect ended up being. This pattern is present with nearly every single article seen today on all sides of the spectrum. Social media is the driver of this, it's not all malintent - again, it's the only pattern that allows an outlet to keep earning revenue to pay their bills. But, it helps lead to and maintain the divide we see today where either side 1.) isn't even aware that good arguments against their position even exist at all and 2.) the belief that the other side is this irredeemable evil that isn't worth listening to.

So, this means that a story about chasers will lead with headlines about how we are causing all of these problems, blocking emergency responders, killing innocent people and so on, then the part about that only being a tiny contingent of chasers will be reserved for the last paragraph that less than 1% of readers will ever get to. Again, there are good writers out there that have actually published balanced stories on this (Ian Livingston is one) but they are outliers.

The other thing I observed with some of the recent events/incidents is the general public's perception of the community is that there are two kinds of chasers: those who are out there to save lives, and those out there for thrills. They perceive the 'life saving' chasers like first responders where the dangerous driving maneuvers are fully justified. They then say all of the rest of us - the 'thrill seekers' - should stay home, stop criticizing the "life savers" and get out of their way. What side of that coin you and I will end up on is the luck of the draw rather than any objective criteria. You're more likely to be seen as a 'life saver' if you're a popular live streamer, are already famous, have a huge social media following or chase for a TV station. But you're basically one misunderstood social media post or quote away from finding yourself on the wrong side of that public opinion dichotomy, whether it is really deserved or not.

One of the most annoying things with headlines in articles is what they claim often are *not* what said in the articles. So they are
getting away with exaggerations and sometimes plain lies, knowing many people will not read "the fine print," so to speak.

Also, the bait and switch, Any headline that asks a question (I find the answer it typically "no"). But the beauty of it, to suck people in. They can imply one thing and completely knock it down in the article itself.

I also frown at any headline that begins with the word "Study:" or Experts:" One study is not proof of anything, but it often gets treated as such, and as if it is a matter of fact. Scientific studies/papers, at least initial releases, were never meant for public consumption out of the gate. It has been found many, many studies and their findings are actually incorrect, or only partially correct, but their findings often get taken at face value, and this gets carried though in the public mindset and into the field of interest, despite the errors. As for "Experts:" I ask, "what experts?" Many times, it is vague in the article or someone who clearly is not an expert in the field. Also, blatant appeal to authority, a very common logical fallacy. Just b/c the powers that be or a popular organization/outlet says something is true, does not mean it always is. There are half-truths, omission of facts, lies, spin, etc. One needs to often apply skepticism and critical thinking, even more in this day and age!

 

[John Farley]

A related problem, which I found out about first-hand years ago, is that the person that writes the headlines is not always the same one that wrote the article. In that case, I was misquoted as using a word I did nut use, then the headline-writer made that word the headline.

 

[NancyM]

I've seen WaPo articles on weather generate a lot of discussion in the comments section, and those tangentially touch on storm chasing from time to time, but none of them really strike as highly memorable pieces of journalism because broader weather and climate stories generate far more engagement.

The comments on WaPo tornado stories transition to climate change comments almost immediately. I'm always disappointed.

 

[Warren Faidley]

This discussion illustrates the value of ST and why some outsiders don't like it. If this subject was not discussed here, it would be lost in a sea of social media noise, sanitizing and disregard. There is also historical value, as someday, when we are all gone, other chasers will have an accurate reference point when studying the history of storm chasing.

 

[Warren Faidley]

The comments on WaPo tornado stories transition to climate change comments almost immediately. I'm always disappointed.

The WaPo would never, ever write an accurate story about the specific trouble maker(s) in chasing. They are also behind a pay wall, which most people avoid.

 

[Boris Konon]

This discussion illustrates the value of ST and why some outsiders don't like it. If this subject was not discussed here, it would be lost in a sea of social media noise, sanitizing and disregard. There is also historical value, as someday, when we are all gone, other chasers will have an accurate reference point when studying the history of storm chasing.

Exactly right. Try having even an opinion, let alone state facts, on many other forums or general social media, and odds are you will get absolutely destroyed with name calling, shaming, and harm wished on you. I swear, some individuals just live for trolling and instigating conflict as they get their jollies from it (dopamine hits are real, and the range out there of how people can get it?). They are not interested at all in having a constructive discussion.