The Weather Channel takes hype to a New Low

[chrisf97212]

I hear the same nonsense on the network evening news - "78 million people in the path of tornadoes!!!".   And after all the other

catastrophes reported in the same dire tones in that half hour, one should just crawl under their bed.

Don't forget "Super Nino 2014!"

[donsutherland1]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/10/21/now-more-than-ever-weather-com-is-out-of-control/

 

Great blog post by the Capital Weather Gang. Even a relatively benign, typical Nor'easter, (like what we are seeing currently) is being spun to crazy levels by this formerly credible weather outlet.

 

Fair Use Excerpt: "A headline today on Weather.com, The Weather Channel’s Web site, has reached new heights in its absurdity and, frankly, irresponsibility. It’s leading Weather.com down a dangerous path of completely losing credibility as a serious source of weather information."

Unfortunately, as the Weather Channel has evolved away from its founding purpose and core weather business, its content has grown looser. If the headline stated that millions would be "affected" by the nor'easter's rains, for example, the headline would have been accurate. "Threatened" implies some degree of danger to one's life. I agree with Jason's article.

[ApacheTrout]

Unfortunately, as the Weather Channel has evolved away from its founding purpose and core weather business, its content has grown looser. If the headline stated that millions would be "affected" by the nor'easter's rains, for example, the headline would have been accurate. "Threatened" implies some degree of danger to one's life. I agree with Jason's article.

 

With the storm pulling away, the impacts range from power outages (50k, according to NBC News), down trees and limbs, and localized flooding.  In Massachusetts, rainfall totals ranged 1.20 to 6.13 inches, yet there isn't a single story covering the event on Boston.com, the online site of the flagship newspaper of New England.  Quite telling.

[Mike.Ventrice]

With the storm pulling away, the impacts range from power outages (50k, according to NBC News), down trees and limbs, and localized flooding.  In Massachusetts, rainfall totals ranged 1.20 to 6.13 inches, yet there isn't a single story covering the even on Boston.com, the online site of the flagship newspaper of New England.  Quite telling.

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/23/storm-floods-roads-brings-down-power-lines-relief-expected-later-today/lDrre3jHPYU6jTFsEtdRJP/story.html

[beavis1729]

 

The media really started becoming out of bounds obsessed with the weather as a result of Hurricane Katrina. I am sure the rise of the internet and the some armchair weather hobbyists also contributed to what we are dealing with today. While a major hurricane or severe weather outbreak warrants extensive coverage, events such as nor'easters, thunderstorms, winter storms and even some low level tropical storms that were previously normal seasonal events have become fodder for the media and some weather outlets to hype and fear monger to ridiculous levels.

 

I agree to a point...but it can also go the other way. For example, in KS and OK, they have almost wall-to-wall news/TV coverage when a severe outbreak is threatening...and it truly is a public service. However, where I live in the Chicago suburbs, the media hardly pays attention to severe weather at all. They will hardly ever break into regular programming...and if they do, the coverage and expertise is sub-par.

[ApacheTrout]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/23/storm-floods-roads-brings-down-power-lines-relief-expected-later-today/lDrre3jHPYU6jTFsEtdRJP/story.html

 

Ahh.  Didn't see there it there on the front page when I checked, but I didn't click through the sections (or even hover the mouse over the metro).