Did Media Go Overboard Hyping Irene?

Once Irene was gone, the media was hit by a storm of criticism over the build-up to the hurricane. Media organizations defended their coverage, in some cases angrily. Networks took cues from public officials, like when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordered unprecedented evacuations and a full-scale public transportation shutdown in the nation's largest city.

The clouds from Hurricane Irene had barely dissipated before a chorus of critics began suggesting that television networks had gone overboard hyping the storm before and during its march up the East Coast.

For days, The Weather Channel and cable news networks reported on little else.

Ultimately, they were affected by the unpredictability that is the nature of tropical storms. Irene largely spared New York City, where much of the media attention had been focused, while causing significant damage in places where it was unanticipated: Who planned for torrents of water in Brattleboro, Vt.?

One media critic, Howard Kurtz, of The Daily Beast, called the coverage “a hurricane of hype.”

Manhattan resident Josh Hull, who left his downtown home to ride out the storm with friends on the Upper East Side, said broadcasters blew the storm way out of proportion.

“I get that news is a business, but drumming up ratings at the expense of 28 million people is beyond the pale,” Hull said. “My family, who all live in another part of the country, were worried sick all weekend while I slept right through the worst of it.”

BRAND CONNECTIONS

The coverage became more a form of entertainment and less of a public resource, said Lise King, a fellow at Harvard University.

“The two agendas cannot co-exist, as one serves to lead citizens into calm action and the other is meant, by nature, to drum up emotional responses in order to keep the viewer tuning in,” she said.

Media organizations defended their coverage, in some cases angrily. NBC News anchor Brian Williams recalled talking to a meteorologist from The Weather Channel on Wednesday night and said he had “never heard him so dire.” Networks took cues from public officials, like when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg ordered unprecedented evacuations and a full-scale public transportation shutdown in the nation’s largest city.

Criticism that the coverage was overblown is the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking, said Phil Griffin, MSNBC chief executive.

“There’s just an unpredictability about this stuff,” Griffin said. “Suppose someone tells you there’s a 1 in 10 chance you’re going to have a tire blow out on your car. Are you going to drive home on it, or are you going to fix the tire? You’re probably going to fix the tire.”

The perception that the storm wasn’t a bad one came because glass did not come flying down from skyscrapers onto the streets of Manhattan in high winds, he said. There’s a much different perception in flood-ravaged New Jersey towns, for instance, or in the hundreds of thousands of homes without power.

Of course, where was the image of the storm created in the first place?

The Weather Channel began casting aside its regular schedule for near-constant storm updates three days before Irene’s initial landfall on North Carolina. The network has more than 200 meteorologists on staff and worked hard to keep its coverage factual and precise, said Bob Walker, its executive vice president and general manager.

Irene wasn’t downgraded to a tropical storm until Sunday morning, when it hit New York. If it had hit the city with the force of a category 1 or 2 hurricane, the damage there would have been much greater, Walker said.

What complicates matters, particularly for The Weather Channel, is that major stories such as impending hurricanes are great for business. With its focus on Irene, the network tripled its audience over the same time last year.

It’s The Weather Channel, Walker said.

“Had we not been talking about a category 1 or 2 hurricane heading up the East Coast, we would not have been true to our mission,” he said.

One television viewer, Brooklyn shirt designer Nechesa Morgan, said she had no problems with television reporting on the storm and preparations for it.

“My issue was how the media turned it into a 24-hour circus that just wouldn’t end,” she said.

Williams acknowledged that jumping on big stories to the near-exclusion of everything else is an ongoing issue for news networks: The weekend announcement that the U.S. had killed the No. 2 leader of al-Qaida drew relatively little attention amid the Irene coverage.

“That’s something we struggle with, and that is an obvious casualty of wall-to-wall storm coverage,” he said. “But people should remember that the news media did not evacuate lower Manhattan.”

Like moist ocean air for a hurricane, politicians provided plenty of fuel for the networks. In the post-Katrina age, no amount of airtime for an officeholder aiming to look prepared for a potential crisis is too much. That’s particularly true for those like Bloomberg, whose administration was criticized in the past for a slow response to a weather crisis (last year’s post-Christmas blizzard).

Government officials and meteorologists are in a no-win situation, said Dave Orth, a network administrator from Pennsaulen, N.J.

“If they underplay it they get hammered, and if they overplay it they get hammered just the same,” he said.

Many people are more willing to forgive too much attention than they would too little.

“I ended up with a few more packs of batteries than needed, and I’m pretty sure I will never have to buy a bottle of water again,” said Victoria Perricon, an Internet entrepreneur from New York, “but I believe it’s better to be well-prepared.”

It’s no help for the media’s image that hurricane reports from the field have themselves become a subject for public mockery. One man in the background of a live Weather Channel report turned his back to the camera and pulled down his pants in a clip that received wide circulation online. There’s also the unnerving feeling that some reporters wouldn’t mind being blown to the ground if it offers street cred.

One Irene-related media criticism that may stick is a perceived New York-centric focus. It’s the city where most media executives, personalities and their families live, and that’s probably why personalities who wouldn’t normally be involved in hurricane coverage — Soledad O’Brien and Ali Velshi of CNN, for example — took to city streets in raincoats.

Mike DeLucia, a New Haven, Conn., resident, said his state’s problems were virtually ignored compared to New York’s. News executives, though, noted the rarity of a hurricane that was predicted to pass right over the nation’s most populous city was itself big news.

MSNBC’s Griffin, for one, has no patience for second-guessers of hurricane coverage.

“It’s a useless exercise,” he said.


Comments (8)

Leave a Reply

Eric Koepele says:

August 30, 2011 at 7:25 am

TV networks and stations tend to hype storms, but in this case, the coverage was superb. As a resident of suburban Philadelphia with (small) property on a barrier island in NJ, I was glued to the tube, watching Irene’s progress through the Carolinas on CNN, while switching increasingly frequently to 6ABC, CBS3 and NBC10 to see deteriorating conditions in the tri-state area. Let’s remember that all of Cape May County, NJ, a big part of Atlantic County, NJ and parts of Philadelphia were evacuated by government order while 370,000 people were ordered out of low-lying parts of NYC. Can’t we regard preparations for Irene as a fine example of how regional government can mobilize citizenry to batten down the hatches and evacuate? Yes, reporters did stand-ups knee deep in storm surges flowing down streets while battered by wind, but those pictures, telecast Saturday morning, no doubt helped convince laggards in New Jersey to get away from the shore. So let’s tell the dart-throwers to relax and thank TV companies for helping to keep everyone sane during a highly threatening weather event.

Robert Cahill says:

August 30, 2011 at 8:36 am

Let’s face it. national media is NYC centric. This hurricane did real damage to NC and other states, but because NYC was spared, “it was overblown.” Storms are too unpredictable. Better to be inconvenienced than dead.

Jason Roberts says:

August 30, 2011 at 8:39 am

There is a great deal of uncertainty in predicting the course and intensity of a hurricane. Irene was a huge, slow-moving storm, hundreds of miles in diameter. At one time, it was classified as a category 3 major hurricane. Had it hit a major population center as a category 3, no one would be asking whether the government or media had hyped the dangers. The government and media reaction to Irene was wholly appropriate.

Michael Weiner says:

August 30, 2011 at 8:48 am

Absolutely not. The networks stayed with this as it pummeled the East Coast. However, once again the big three networks showed their bias. If this were a hurricane that struck only Florida or North Carolina, they would have spent the first five minutes, two packages, with coverage — no special reports, no wall-to-wall coverage. Since this was headed toward their homes in NYC, it was worthy of all-out coverage. Let’s see if they do the same the next time a hurricane is headed toward the US. When Katrina set its sights on New Orleans, the networks didn;t spent much time with the storm. After it hit and destroyed the community, THEN it became real news.

Jason Crundwell says:

August 30, 2011 at 9:44 am

Absolutely right, Floridian. The Gulf Coast gets the brunt of every hurricane season, yet it rarely if ever even leads the national news when one hits. It’s just another example of the irrelevance of network news. Most of the country doesn’t see NYC as the center of the universe and those of us who have lived in hurricane country all our lives just laugh and roll our eyes at the hyperbole. Get over yourself, NYC.

Ellen Samrock says:

August 30, 2011 at 11:57 am

This is why we have local TV stations. It is these station that pick up the story when it moves into their neighborhood (or nearby) and run with it with wall-to-wall coverage, if possible. You can’t expect similar coverage from a station that is thousands of miles away.

May-Wine Nyi Nyi says:

August 30, 2011 at 2:27 pm

I firmly believe that this was reality television at it’s finest. Someone above made a comment about the coverage being more of entertainment value and they were exactly right. While I’ve been a fan of the Weather Channel (owned by NBC) for many years, I did feel that Brian Williams oversold the whole “event”. As charming as he is, i frequently wonder who Mr. Williams works for, the Entertainment or the News division. (I don’t recall any news person making that many appearances on “The Tonight Show” over the years). The storm itself should have been the “driving” force behind how/where/when coverage was handled, but I somehow felt the “driving” was being done by Mr. Williams, Jim Cantore, and the powerful NBC News machine. And they did it very well, sans Al Roker’s post-storm terribly overly-emotional comments. (People are entitled to their opinions, Al) I don’t want to detract from the serious nature of this storm, the damage that was done, and the lives that were lost. But I hope that everyone realizes what an ever growing effect the national news media(s) have on our lives. I’d suggest we get back to the basics in television by supporting our “local” TV stations, whatever their affiliation, and make sure our TV Network News Divisions do what they’re supposed to…Report the news in a professional and unbiased manner.

Vicki Melbye says:

August 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm

Personally, I would rather see media hype and the city officials take action against the worst possible outcome, at least then people actually pay attention and take action and live. Unless slapped in the head most people don’t take warnings seriously and then when something happens them blame everyone but themselves, common sense and a little inconvenience is still better than a funeral.


More News