The weather in the USA...

[claphamboy]

Well, this is just a small website. There were probably others in the UK interested, if there were people here interested.

I agree that the coverage was ott, but it was only for 2 days. Probably not much of import got passed over in the last 48 hours.

The TV coverage here started last Wednesday IIRC, or Thursday at the latest, and they are still banging on about it this morning, so that's 5 or 6 days.

Seriously, unless there's widespread damage on the level of Hurricane Katrina, hurricanes hitting the US isn't something of great interest in the UK.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The TV coverage here started last Wednesday IIRC, or Thursday at the latest, and they are still banging on about it this morning, so that's 5 or 6 days.

Seriously, unless there's widespread damage on the level of Hurricane Katrina, hurricanes hitting the US isn't something of great interest in the UK.

Your news editors seem to think otherwise.

If coverage started wednesday or thursday, and this is sunday/monday, how do you get five or six days out of that?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Especially when it is totally exaggerated by the media, trying to create a crisis out of a storm with 50 mph. winds.

We only have ourselves to blame, for actually watching the shit.

Yes, I have to admit that it made me laugh. We have a special name for days that the wind reaches 50 MPH. We call it .....







March, April, and May.

 

[free spirit]

there has always been a lot of that here and i find it amusing when people try to deny it.

tbf though, when you've got a country that elects someone like bush as president, then follows that up by electing significant numbers of tea party numpties to congress, it really would be criminal of us not to take the piss.

It's a sign of affection really.

 

[Miss Caphat]

yeah except when it's really mean-spirited and/or ignorant, which it is from time to time.

 

[dilute micro]

Yes, I have to admit that it made me laugh. We have a special name for days that the wind reaches 50 MPH. We call it .....

March, April, and May.

JC is referring to a news report before the storm actually hit.

 

[dilute micro]

Their news stories generally portray a rather curious view of the UK. We're either bowler hatted toffs spouting Shakespeare or feral looters on the rampage.

Everybody knows the bowler hat stuff isn't true.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

tbf though, when you've got a country that elects someone like bush as president, then follows that up by electing significant numbers of tea party numpties to congress, it really would be criminal of us not to take the piss.

It's a sign of affection really.

You have a strange, obsessive-compulsive way of showing affection then.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

JC is referring to a news report before the storm actually hit.

I saw ABC news reporting on the wind speed during the hurricane and they said it was 50 mph.

 

[dilute micro]

I saw ABC news reporting on the wind speed during the hurricane and they said it was 50 mph.

You should familiarize yourself with how they classify hurricanes and tropical storms.

If the top speed of sustained wind is no greater than 50 mph - it's not a hurricane. <----note "sustained".

In fact it has to be sustained at 74 mph.

 

[Miss Caphat]

You have a strange, obsessive-compulsive way of showing affection then.

I see it more as passive aggressive (not freespirit in particular btw)

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

You should familiarize yourself with how they classify hurricanes and tropical storms.

If the top speed of sustained wind is no greater than 50 mph - it's not a hurricane. <----note "sustained".

In fact it has to be sustained at 74 mph.

Yes, it was in fact, a tropical storm in the place they were reporting. You should try and "educate" the news services.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I see it more as passive aggressive (not freespirit in particular btw)

It's hard to pick out the passive part, though.

 

[Miss Caphat]

true

 

[dilute micro]

Yes, it was in fact, a tropical storm in the place they were reporting. You should try and "educate" the news services.

So it was well after it hit land....and was no longer a hurricane.

"I saw ABC news reporting on the wind speed during the hurricane and they said it was 50 mph." - Yuwipi

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Every time I read this thread title, my brain involuntarily starts playing 'Livin in the USA' by Steve Miller.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

So it was well after it hit land....and was no longer a hurricane.

"I saw ABC news reporting on the wind speed during the hurricane and they said it was 50 mph." - Yuwipi

As was said before that's what ABC news was reporting it as -- hurricane with 50 mph winds. Take it up with them.

Here let me try another language:

Como se ha dicho antes que es lo que ABC news informó de que como -- el huracán con 50 mph vientos. Recoger con ellos es analfabeta tonto.

 

[London_Calling]

anal what now? In that wind?

 

[ska invita]

Do Americans know as much about the UK as we know about them?

Relative from the US's jaw dropped when he was staying with me at how much US news was reported in the UK. (He also flipped out when there were no ads on BBC, and then fell on the floor when he found it was state-sponsored )

 

[dilute micro]

As was said before that's what ABC news was reporting it as -- hurricane with 50 mph winds. Take it up with them.

Here let me try another language:

Como se ha dicho antes que es lo que ABC news informó de que como -- el huracán con 50 mph vientos. Recoger con ellos es analfabeta tonto.

It's more like you just made it up. Figure the odds that the news media mistake a tropical storm for a hurricane with winds of "50 mph" "during the hurricane"....which happened to be the exact speed JC said he saw but was mistaken because it was actually before the hurricane arrived.

 

[free spirit]

You have a strange, obsessive-compulsive way of showing affection then.

tbf, we do get US culture, news and opinions shoved in our faces 24/7, and it is such a wide open target for piss taking.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

It's more like you just made it up. Figure the odds that the news media mistake a tropical storm for a hurricane with winds of "50 mph" "during the hurricane"....which happened to be the exact speed JC said he saw but was mistaken because it was actually before the hurricane arrived.

That's a bit rich coming from a closeted Confederate with Ayn Rand fantasties.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's more like you just made it up. Figure the odds that the news media mistake a tropical storm for a hurricane with winds of "50 mph" "during the hurricane"....which happened to be the exact speed JC said he saw but was mistaken because it was actually before the hurricane arrived.

I wasn't mistaken.

Btw, I think people are forgetting something. News shows have to get ratings just like any other tv program. Impending disaster keeps butts in seats more than 'it's a bit windy today'.

 

[Miss Caphat]

To me this discussion seems disrespectful to the people/areas that did suffer massive damage. Who the fuck cares if some tv reporter was covering a certain area that was predicted to get hit by a cat.3 and only got hit by a tropical storm, and therefore had to be a bit dramatic and improvise?

For me, the fact that huge portions of Vermont and New York state etc, are still under water, roads and towns destroyed, and that Vt lost a few of its iconic covered bridges hits really close to home, and is very upsetting.

It's all well and good to sit there 100's or 1000's of miles away and sneer, but it's pissing me off. Can we move on now, or is proving a point more important?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

To me this discussion seems disrespectful to the people/areas that did suffer massive damage. Who the fuck cares if some tv reporter was covering a certain area that was predicted to get hit by a cat.3 and only got hit by a tropical storm, and therefore had to be a bit dramatic and improvise?

For me, the fact that huge portions of Vermont and New York state etc, are still under water, roads and towns destroyed, and that Vt lost a few of its iconic covered bridges hits really close to home, and is very upsetting.

It's all well and good to sit there 100's or 1000's of miles away and sneer, but it's pissing me off. Can we move on now, or is proving a point more important?

I'm not sneering at anyone in Vermont.

I'm pointing out what I think is a valid point: networks like CNN sometimes [often] hype up stories in order to boost their ratings.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Plus, if you think about it, you can approach any story in a number of different ways. The story I've been following and posting on about the washed up feet around here - eleven at last count - has elicited some humorous responses etc. But if you think about it, eleven people are dead in mysterious circumstances.

But going all po-faced isn't necessarily the way to go, either.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

To me this discussion seems disrespectful to the people/areas that did suffer massive damage. Who the fuck cares if some tv reporter was covering a certain area that was predicted to get hit by a cat.3 and only got hit by a tropical storm, and therefore had to be a bit dramatic and improvise?

For me, the fact that huge portions of Vermont and New York state etc, are still under water, roads and towns destroyed, and that Vt lost a few of its iconic covered bridges hits really close to home, and is very upsetting.

It's all well and good to sit there 100's or 1000's of miles away and sneer, but it's pissing me off. Can we move on now, or is proving a point more important?

Its certainly not my intention to denigrate people who are dealing with the aftermath. I'm only taking a bit of an issue with the uneven coverage. Its usually better for all if you're dealing with accurate information and not ignore coverage of some areas entirely, while overplaying areas where it will appear more dramatic on television.

We're still dealing with flooding from last Spring. I-29 between Omaha and St. Joe, MO is still closed as are large portions of roads between Nebraska and Iowa. I haven't even mentioned the homes where people are unlikely to be able to return until a Fall of 2012. Our nuclear plant that was experiencing flooding just went off alert for the first time in months. I'm not without understanding.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Its certainly not my intention to denigrate people who are dealing with the aftermath. I'm only taking a bit of an issue with the uneven coverage. Its usually better for all if you're dealing with accurate information and not ignore coverage of some areas entirely, while overplaying areas where it will appear more dramatic on television.

We're still dealing with flooding from last Spring. I-29 between Omaha and St. Joe, MO is still closed as are large portions of roads between Nebraska and Iowa. I haven't even mentioned the homes where people are unlikely to be able to return until a Fall of 2012. Our nuclear plant that was experiences flooding just went off alert for the first time in months. I'm not without understanding.

I can't even be sure that Hurricane Irene didn't get as much coverage as the earthquake in Japan.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I'm not sneering at anyone in Vermont.

I'm pointing out what I think is a valid point: networks like CNN sometimes [often] hype up stories in order to boost their ratings.

I've agreed all along that it's a valid point. Problem is that you keep downplaying the actual reality of the storm by focusing on what didn't happen rather than what did in order to prove your point. I don't see anyone disagreeing with your so-called point, I just don't see why you keep arguing about it and as a result, seeming offensive and insensitive.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I can't even be sure that Hurricane Irene didn't get as much coverage as the earthquake in Japan.