Hurricane Hype
On Point with Chris Papst
After Hurricane Irene spun its way up the east coast and dissipated into the record books, the main complaints concerning the aftermath appeared to center around the media. The internet is filled with articles and blogs about how the media over-hyped Irene’s threat and aftermath. But did we?
Hurricane Irene was undoubtedly a potential crisis. All hurricanes are dangerous, but when they are projected to hit population centers like Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and New York, their significance escalates exponentially.
The media coverage began in earnest about four days before the storm made landfall. At my station, CBS-21, we focused on providing viewers with information on how to prepare. Yet, national media largely took a different route. Most of the reports I saw outlined worst case scenarios. One predicted damage in the tens of billions, with millions without power for weeks.
When Irene made landfall, the destruction was bad, but nothing we haven't seen before. And in the following days, the coverage was constant. I watched local news in Philly and Harrisburg and it was aggressive. Reporters highlighted the worst damage and talking to those most affected. National news did the same. But the question is: did Irene deserve all this attention? And was that attention hyped?
Irene was by no means an insignificant storm. In the United States, it killed 45 people (five in Pennsylvania: three from fallen trees, one in a traffic accident and one via flooding). In Philadelphia, Irene left thousands without power while felling more than 400 trees, and toppling seven buildings. Overall, it's predicted Irene was responsible for $7 billion in damage along the eastern seaboard.
Those numbers are not good, but they fall far short of previous hurricanes. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused $108 billion in damage. Nearly 20 years ago, in 1992, Andrew cost Louisiana and Florida $44 billion. Just seven years ago, Charley hit Florida for $15 billion. As far as material cost is concerned, Irene’s not even in the top ten despite hitting the country's most populous region.
But the toll that any natural disaster creates must be measured in what cannot be rebuilt – human lives. The Galveston Hurricane in 1900 killed as many as 12,000 people. In 1928, the San Felipe-Okeechobee Hurricane equaled Katrina with 1800 dead.
The Tuesday after the storm, I did a story on the hurricane's hype. I was curious to find out what people in our area thought of the media’s coverage. One Harrisburg man, whose neighbor had a giant sycamore fall onto his house, felt we did a good job. “I thought it was very thoroughly covered,” stated Clint Heath. “As a homeowner, I would prefer things not be downplayed because of potential damage to my home.”
Heath appreciated the media’s effort to bring the latest in terms of hurricane strength and its path. But others thought the pre-coverage was just scare tactics and the post-coverage was overkill. Guy Bowe: “I feel like the news always tries to over-hype things to get a better story out of things than they really are. It’s more interesting to viewers.”
There are instances where the media is guilty of hyping the news. But as far as natural disasters are concerned, I believe it's relative to your involvement. People who suffer loss tend to thank the media for keeping them updated and helping them prepare. Those who sustained little or no damage, many times have far less appreciation.
Ultimately, Hurricanes are fascinating: the anticipation; the preparation; the wind; the rain; the aftermath; the cleanup. They make for great TV. In a post Katrina world, the coverage surrounding Irene is the new norm. Whether it's a category 5 or a weak category 1, what we saw in Irene will likely equal every hurricane that follows. Is it sensationalism? Maybe. But it's also based in ratings. And people love to watch.
Chris Papst is a two-time Emmy Award winning reporter for CBS-21 News.
Hurricane Irene was undoubtedly a potential crisis. All hurricanes are dangerous, but when they are projected to hit population centers like Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and New York, their significance escalates exponentially.
The media coverage began in earnest about four days before the storm made landfall. At my station, CBS-21, we focused on providing viewers with information on how to prepare. Yet, national media largely took a different route. Most of the reports I saw outlined worst case scenarios. One predicted damage in the tens of billions, with millions without power for weeks.
When Irene made landfall, the destruction was bad, but nothing we haven't seen before. And in the following days, the coverage was constant. I watched local news in Philly and Harrisburg and it was aggressive. Reporters highlighted the worst damage and talking to those most affected. National news did the same. But the question is: did Irene deserve all this attention? And was that attention hyped?
Irene was by no means an insignificant storm. In the United States, it killed 45 people (five in Pennsylvania: three from fallen trees, one in a traffic accident and one via flooding). In Philadelphia, Irene left thousands without power while felling more than 400 trees, and toppling seven buildings. Overall, it's predicted Irene was responsible for $7 billion in damage along the eastern seaboard.
Those numbers are not good, but they fall far short of previous hurricanes. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 caused $108 billion in damage. Nearly 20 years ago, in 1992, Andrew cost Louisiana and Florida $44 billion. Just seven years ago, Charley hit Florida for $15 billion. As far as material cost is concerned, Irene’s not even in the top ten despite hitting the country's most populous region.
But the toll that any natural disaster creates must be measured in what cannot be rebuilt – human lives. The Galveston Hurricane in 1900 killed as many as 12,000 people. In 1928, the San Felipe-Okeechobee Hurricane equaled Katrina with 1800 dead.
The Tuesday after the storm, I did a story on the hurricane's hype. I was curious to find out what people in our area thought of the media’s coverage. One Harrisburg man, whose neighbor had a giant sycamore fall onto his house, felt we did a good job. “I thought it was very thoroughly covered,” stated Clint Heath. “As a homeowner, I would prefer things not be downplayed because of potential damage to my home.”
Heath appreciated the media’s effort to bring the latest in terms of hurricane strength and its path. But others thought the pre-coverage was just scare tactics and the post-coverage was overkill. Guy Bowe: “I feel like the news always tries to over-hype things to get a better story out of things than they really are. It’s more interesting to viewers.”
There are instances where the media is guilty of hyping the news. But as far as natural disasters are concerned, I believe it's relative to your involvement. People who suffer loss tend to thank the media for keeping them updated and helping them prepare. Those who sustained little or no damage, many times have far less appreciation.
Ultimately, Hurricanes are fascinating: the anticipation; the preparation; the wind; the rain; the aftermath; the cleanup. They make for great TV. In a post Katrina world, the coverage surrounding Irene is the new norm. Whether it's a category 5 or a weak category 1, what we saw in Irene will likely equal every hurricane that follows. Is it sensationalism? Maybe. But it's also based in ratings. And people love to watch.
Chris Papst is a two-time Emmy Award winning reporter for CBS-21 News.
