Skip to main content

the weather's not the biggest problem

first things first: i hope that, if you're reading this and you were in the path of any part of hurricane/ tropical storm irene, that you made it through safely and without the loss of anything important to you.

 irene didn't look like this, but it could have
second, i really hope [although i'm not stupid, so i know it's not going to happen] that news organisations like cnn [i know fox was worse, but no one really expects any real journalism from them anyway, right?] take the opportunity on monday morning to issue a big, fat apology to their viewers about the nature of their coverage.

seriously. what were you guys thinking?

i do remember back in 2005, having my cynical mind blown by the coverage of hurricane katrina, while the powers that were tried to pretend like it was no big deal [and, now that i think of it, that included fox news]. i saw anderson cooper's fabled meltdown at mary landrieu live and wondered what had possessed the media that they'd suddenly located their collective testicles. but now, every time a storm threatens any part of the continental united states, i get this uncomfortable feeling, not just because i think that there are a lot of people in the media who'd prefer a disaster [we've known that for years], but because the increasingly hysterical coverage is now actually interfering with people getting the information they need to stay safe. [i'll say that the one piece of information i did have was the time when the new york subway system was shutting down. that i knew. it was approximately five hours earlier than the time people were to have evacuated low-lying areas of the city.]


amidst the various shots of correspondents standing in the rain [which is in itself a mixed message], there was precious little information being conveyed about where people anywhere along the storm's path should go, who they should call, what web sites they should check or anything that might be of any use to people not comfortably ensconced as observers. to be fair, i like to think that local networks might have offered more coverage of this, but that still doesn't excuse the fact that on networks like cnn, a 24-hour news network that was covering no other story for the last two days, there was nothing being communicated save the repeated exhortations that people along the eastern seaboard should be afraid.

this is serious business...
i agree that a certain level of fear and respect for the awesome power that nature can unleash is important in such situations. but so is the ability to think clearly and plan properly and as far as i could tell from the news coverage i was seeing, people seeking help in those departments were pretty much on their own. tales of ravaged homes and destruction were everywhere, but, strangely, information on the actual dangers posed by storms of this magnitude [like the danger of electrocution from downed power lines] was absent.

of course, irene fell far short of its advance billing as the storm of the century. as it happened, while it originally looked like many major metropolitan centres were at risk, most of them ended up getting off relatively lightly. the media looks a little ridiculous, which has been known to happen, but what's worse is that people have lost just a little bit more trust in the reliability of the information they receive. short term, that means nothing. long term, it means that the next time a potential killer storm, or fire, or man-made disaster is causing hysteria in the media's ranks, that the people most at risk are going to be a little less inclined to take those warnings seriously, which could have profound implications the next time a politician has to use that media to persuade people to leave their homes because they might be in danger.

good luck with that, guys...

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…