 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17th, 2009 01:14 pm |
|
Yesterday there was another outbreak of severe storms east of Springfield and once again there was a problem with TV coverage.
The NWS issued a thunderstorm warning for parts of Wright and Texas counties and it was covered by "local" TV although not as quickly as radio. The first problem was that the warning was canceled at 4:50. Twenty-five minutes later a TV station was still showing the warning as valid. Oooops!
Unfortunately the same station failed to show a second separate warning for parts of Webster, Douglas, and Wright counties at all. That storm continued to develop and additional warnings were eventually issued.
Two points for radio!!!!
|
jandeck1
Member
| Joined: | Sat Sep 15th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17th, 2009 03:24 pm |
|
You say a "local" TV station without naming directly the station, therefore lumping them all into the same basket. Classic poor debating mistake and wholly inaccurate.
I suppose all the "loca'l" radio stations had it all correct. What a weak argument. Surely you are much more capable of building a case than this.
Go ahead and rant and rave about how great mostly automated radio stations do on their weather coverage with NO meteorologists on staff. People look to TV for proper breaking events because they put the money and time into doing a good job. Radio stations do NOT do this, will NOT do this and therefore your argument that Radio is a better source for local weather coverage is patently untrue and if there is a balanced, logical thought in your head, you know this is rue.
You promote local community coverage on your www site of weather and none of your links work - take them down or fix them. Or do you not have the money that a TV group has do build a web site that has interactive radar and locally produced custom wather forecasts? I think not.
Go ahead, pick and choose minor mistakes in TV weather. Then delude yourself that Cabool community radio is kicking anybody's butt on weather coverage.
I am not going to respond anymore to this new round of endless circular argument - maybe somebody else can tag-team and attack what is obviously superior coverage from TV, or support my position. I am weary of your "selective illustration" position. That's something like pulling statistices or bible quotes out of context to illustrate a poor argument.
I am through!
But thanks for watching local TV weather coverage so closely!
|
techpuppy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 17th, 2009 03:57 pm |
|
There's nothing inaccurate about it. It was KSPR. Feel better now?
I have never made any claims about our severe weather coverage other than to say that we immediately get information to the public. It is accurate and we provide live local coverage and updates. There are other stations that do too so I'm not claiming it is entirely exclusive in any way.
Obviously TV has problems which you won't admit. If they have so much money and so many people why are they not reliable? Missing a warning is not a minor mistake as you would like people to believe.
I explained our web site and the site was updated...just to correct you yet again. Our focus is on radio.
What in the world did radio do to you for you to be so blindly vicious?
|
Buddy Dornster
Member
|
Posted: Sun Jul 19th, 2009 02:52 am |
|
If you'll allow the guy with headphones on to butt in here.....
One thing that I missed was the mobile audience. TV does NOT reach folks in cars, and very few in offices or factories.
Now, while you can see the radar for yourself on TV, so long as they leave it on your area for any time, good local radio stations (and they DO exist Jan) provide immediacy for THEIR market, something TV also cannot do for their entire ADI.
Twenty some years ago, Techpuppy and I worked together at a local radio station, and came up with the idea to tell listeners which highways would be affected, not the obscure, sometimes no longer existent, towns that the new TV radar automatically picks up from a pre-programmed database. This is one area where automation in the TV station has taken away from the presentation, rather than adding to it. Travelers do not always know which county they are in, let alone what quadrant of that county. BTW, we got great recognition from out of state drivers for offering this coverage.
Local radio folks, when they're good, KNOW their area BETTER than the Springfield TV stations. They KNOW the people who will be impacted, probably even know the names of people in a storms path.
Each medium has its place. Each must deliver weather information to their intended audience in a timely manner. Reliance on automation has made many a radio station lazy, but not all. Reliance on automation of a another form, computers, has led to the time mistakes that make the alerts come out wrong, in either radio or TV. People must apply THOUGHT, no matter how much they have spent on their training or equipment.
THAT is where this business has fallen short, and why we are BOTH losing audience to the internet, where people can get their OWN information and interpret for themselves, correctly or not. At least some of THEM are applying thought to their actions.
|
XGM
Member
| Joined: | Tue Feb 6th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 390 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 19th, 2009 02:24 pm |
|
Some good points BD....especially regarding the "traveling public"... someone from Kentucky for instance would never know where Pulaski county is...so we had our people say "warning for Pulaski county (that's about 60 miles northeast of Springfield)....giving the out state travelers an idea where it is compared to where they might be driving. TV cant do this, their audience is not in cars.
I recall a few years ago I was traveling on the Interstate east of Flagstaff AZ in a horrible Ice storm...hundreds of cars and trucks lined both directions as far as the eye could see and not a word about it on any radio station on the dial...pitiiful. I had my cell phone and called Gallup NM for "just any station" (I didn't know any call letters out there). I ate out the guy who answered,explaining I was in radio back in Missouri and would "fire some folks if they did that poorly". Before I hung up, I asked his dial position and tuned in....it was a weak station and didn't reach us!
Indefence of TV...they do have much better radar coverage now than they did in the 70s and 80s.... So, both Radio and TV have their strong points. In either event the staff must do it right to get the most for their listeners-or-viewers.
|
Current time is 04:32 pm | |
|
|
|
|
