[TV orNotTV] NO TV: Hurricane Info

[PGage]

My daughter (age 22) is currently living in what I think is referred to as the lower east side of Manhattan (near east 2nd street, around one of the alphabet avenues, I think A, B or C). Looking at the Hurricane Map for Manhattan, it seems like she is right on the border between Zone B & Zone C (which is marked for evacuation in the case of a Level 2 or 3 Hurricane).

They seem to be predicting that by the time it gets to NYC it will be Category 1 or even down to tropical storm, but the problem is, the national news seems to be saying that, regardless of the strength of the storm, it is moving slow enough, and it is large enough and targeted on NY Harbor, that there will be a hell of a lot of water in the storm surge, which will likely flood coastal areas of Manhattan. I am trying to do 2 things: 1 - persuade my potentially foolishly brave young adult daughter to be better safe than sorry and leave her apartment tomorrow before the buses and trains stop, and 2 - if successful with #1, figure out where a safe place is to move her to (trying to get a hotel room). I was able to get a reservation for sunday night at a national chain hotel around 35th street and 6th avenue, which looks to be a safe location under even the worst case scenarios, but was not able to find a vacancy for Saturday night at any medium priced (3 star or so) hotel in that "white" (safe) zone. The problem there is that the buses and trains are going to stop at Noon, so even though she probably does not need to leave her apartment tomorrow, if she leaves sunday morning she will have to walk 2 miles to the hotel (unless the taxis will still be operating?).

I could probably find a room for her for saturday and sunday out of Manhattan, but I can't with confidence figure out where to send her out of the line of fire. Much of New Jersey seems to be in danger, and, while she has friends in the Scarsdale area, it seems they might be in some danger too.

Here are my questions for anyone familiar with the area and conditions:
1. Would you evacuate if you were in a Zone B/C area before the City requires it? It seems like, even if the chances of serious flooding are minimal, waiting until you know for sure might be too late, since there will be no way to get out of there.

2. Will taxis be operating in Manhattan Sunday morning (even when the buses and subways are offline)?

3. Where off of Manhattan island would you recommend trying to find a moderately priced, safe hotel room? Should I be looking in New Jersey (it seems like there are few places there that are not kind of close to a river at least), or more update or western New York?

Of course her mother and I would like to put her on a plane back to civilization in California for a few days visit - aside from the ouch of the cost of a r/t ticket with no notice, she does have a really good internship that she has just started, and would not like to miss on Monday (or Tuesday, if weather requires it).

[David Bruggeman]

I can only speak with much confidence to general trends with the storm, which has been curving through the eastern part of the projected path over the last 24 hours or so.  Points west and north of the NYC area seem to be a safer bet (current track places the storm center amidst Long Island shortly after 8 am Sunday), though heavy rain and wind are likely for at least 125 miles on either side of the eye.  I would try to get out of Westchester, and aim for west of the Hudson.  Probably not easily done, though Metro North Rail does go much further north and west than Scarsdale.

If there's a bridge crossing involved in her route, the earlier the better, since they take the early brunt of wind.

My employer is headquartered in Manhattan (I work in D.C.) and they indicated they will try and have some kind of messaging in place by Sunday evening wrt who should come in (if anyone) on Monday.  If she hasn't already checked in with her internship place, that should probably be part of her conversations this weekend.

Something worth figuring out is how long it will take to restore service to NYC mass transit once an all-clear is sounded.  If it's taking time to get trains to safe locations, it will take time to get them into operation for Monday.  Even if your daughter is expected in on Monday, transit delays seem likely.

Best to everyone,

David

---

From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>
To: tvor...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 12:52 AM
Subject: [TV orNotTV] NO TV: Hurricane Info

--
TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

[Joe Hass]

> 1. Would you evacuate if you were in a Zone B/C area before the City
> requires it? It seems like, even if the chances of serious flooding are
> minimal, waiting until you know for sure might be too late, since there will
> be no way to get out of there.

I would not. If I had a 22-year-old daughter at this exact moment
(8:45 AM ET Saturday), I'd tell her to shelter in place. It's hard to
say without knowing what, exactly, her living conditions are in terms
of the structure she's in, etc., but assuming she's in someplace that
has at least two floors, she should be fine.

The two quick reports I've found from NY1 and WNBC indicate that the
biggest risk is below Canal, south of where your daughter is, so as
long as she's prepared to bunker down, she should be fine.

> 2. Will taxis be operating in Manhattan Sunday morning (even when the buses
> and subways are offline)?

If there's a fare to be had, the hacks will try to get it. That being
said, I think the bigger struggle would be to find an *open* cab.

> 3. Where off of Manhattan island would you recommend trying to find a
> moderately priced, safe hotel room? Should I be looking in New Jersey (it
> seems like there are few places there that are not kind of close to a river
> at least), or more update or western New York?

Given the map released at 8 AM, I'd lean towards Jersey if only
because, at this moment, it will probably be easier for her to get out
there today.

Best of luck.

[Joe Hass]

To amend my note about taxis: the TLC has basically dropped all their
restrictions and allow pretty much anyone with a hack license
(including sedans, limos, and commuter vans) to pick up anyone
anywhere, including group travel (meaning even if they have someone in
the car, they can pick someone else up). They're going to a
zone-pricing system, meaning you pay a flat $10 rate within a zone and
$5 more for each zone you go through (there are six zones, with
Manhattan being split into two zones at 60th Street).

http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/downloads/pdf/industry_notice_for_hurricane_irene_zone_fares.pdf

[Ron Casalotti]

Let me preface by saying that no one really knows the extent of the impact of a hurricane until it actually passes, but my personal opinion is that she should be fine where she is (unless, perhaps, she's in a basement apartment. 

The "Zone A" evacuation is precautionary. To get to a Zone B or C evacuation would take, IMO, at least a Cat 3, likely 4, hurricane. Irene is currently a Cat 1 with expected "weakening" to Tropical Storm (winds less than 75 mph) after is passes NYC.

The NYC transit system is shutting down as of 12PM ET, but it takes about 8 hours to complete (likely the final few hours spent on garaging buses and moving trains to train yards and allowing employees to get home). Taxis will operate for as long as the drivers feel safe plus "gypsy cabs" -- private car services -- will be allowed to pick up passengers via street hails as opposed to the normal telephone arrangements.

The big issues for NYC residents will be three fold. First, wind. Advice: stay indoors and away from the windows. It is not the wind per se to be concerned about, but the debris the wind may pick up from rooftops and construction sites (many of which are hundreds of feet in the air) that is likely to be the problem. Stay indoors. 

Second, flooding. It isl likely your daughter lives in a walk up so she is not likely to be flooded out. But subway stations and tunnels (as mentioned on this list earlier) are up to four stories underground. They will flood as drainage and/or pumps are overwhelmed by the unusual volume of water (which is why the transit system is shutting down at noon). 

Third, power failure. There of course can be a power failure in NYC almost any day, so she should have flashlights and perhaps a lantern (battery powered) on hand just in case. Avoid candles as they are a fire risk.

Relocate? It is likely too late as hotel space is scarce. If you or she feels she must relocate, don't go off of Manhattan which would require using a bridge or tunnel (it is an island after all), both of which are impacted early by high winds/heavy rain. If she has a friend in midtown where she can crash for a night, that should be more than adequate.

One warning: Cell service WILL be slammed during and just after the storm. Calls may not go through. BUT, emails and texts are much  more likely to work (due to their lower bandwidth requirement). So tell her to keep in touch via text or email to keep you assured. 

Keep in mind that the storm will pass NYC in time to likely see the sunset Sunday night. NYC and Manhattan in particular (and its residents) are extremely resilient. Unless transportation systems are still down by Monday morning, she should expect to show up for work -- on time.

Good luck to her and all. If you want the latest news, you can always go on the 'Net to local NYC TV station Web sites like Http://www.7online.com have updated news and weather.

Ron Casalotti

Wayne, NJ

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 6:33 AM, <tvornott...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

  Today's Topic Summary

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv/topics

• NO TV: Hurricane Info [2 Updates]

 Topic: NO TV: Hurricane Info

PGage <pga...@gmail.com> Aug 26 09:52PM -0700 ^

1. Would you evacuate if you were in a Zone B/C area before the City
requires it? It seems like, even if the chances of serious flooding are
minimal, waiting until you know for sure might be too late, since there will
be no way to get out of there.
 

2. Will taxis be operating in Manhattan Sunday morning (even when the buses
and subways are offline)?
 

3. Where off of Manhattan island would you recommend trying to find a
moderately priced, safe hotel room? Should I be looking in New Jersey (it
seems like there are few places there that are not kind of close to a river
at least), or more update or western New York?
 

Of course her mother and I would like to put her on a plane back to
civilization in California for a few days visit - aside from the ouch of the
cost of a r/t ticket with no notice, she does have a really good internship
that she has just started, and would not like to miss on Monday (or Tuesday,
if weather requires it).


 

David Bruggeman <bru...@yahoo.com> Aug 27 12:38AM -0700 ^

 
I can only speak with much confidence to general trends with the storm, which has been curving through the eastern part of the projected path over the last 24 hours or so.  Points west and north of the NYC area seem to be a safer bet (current track places the storm center amidst Long Island shortly after 8 am Sunday), though heavy rain and wind are likely for at least 125 miles on either side of the eye.  I would try to get out of Westchester, and aim for west of the Hudson.  Probably not easily done, though Metro North Rail does go much further north and west than Scarsdale.
 
 
If there's a bridge crossing involved in her route, the earlier the better, since they take the early brunt of wind.
 
 
My employer is headquartered in Manhattan (I work in D.C.) and they indicated they will try and have some kind of messaging in place by Sunday evening wrt who should come in (if anyone) on Monday.  If she hasn't already checked in with her internship place, that should probably be part of her conversations this weekend.
 
Something worth figuring out is how long it will take to restore service to NYC mass transit once an all-clear is sounded.  If it's taking time to get trains to safe locations, it will take time to get them into operation for Monday.  Even if your daughter is expected in on Monday, transit delays seem likely.
 
Best to everyone,
David
 
 
 
________________________________
From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>
To: tvor...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 12:52 AM
Subject: [TV orNotTV] NO TV: Hurricane Info
 
 
My daughter (age 22) is currently living in what I think is referred to as the lower east side of Manhattan (near east 2nd street, around one of the alphabet avenues, I think A, B or C). Looking at the Hurricane Map for Manhattan, it seems like she is right on the border between Zone B & Zone C (which is marked for evacuation in the case of a Level 2 or 3 Hurricane).
 
They seem to be predicting that by the time it gets to NYC it will be Category 1 or even down to tropical storm, but the problem is, the national news seems to be saying that, regardless of the strength of the storm, it is moving slow enough, and it is large enough and targeted on NY Harbor, that there will be a hell of a lot of water in the storm surge, which will likely flood coastal areas of Manhattan. I am trying to do 2 things: 1 - persuade my potentially foolishly brave young adult daughter to be better safe than sorry and leave her apartment tomorrow before the buses and trains stop, and 2 - if successful with #1, figure out where a safe place is to move her to (trying to get a hotel room). I was able to get a reservation for sunday night at a national chain hotel around 35th street and 6th avenue, which looks to be a safe location under even the worst case scenarios, but was not able to find a vacancy for Saturday night at any medium priced (3
star or so) hotel in that "white" (safe) zone. The problem there is that the buses and trains are going to stop at Noon, so even though she probably does not need to leave her apartment tomorrow, if she leaves sunday morning she will have to walk 2 miles to the hotel (unless the taxis will still be operating?).
 
I could probably find a room for her for saturday and sunday out of Manhattan, but I can't with confidence figure out where to send her out of the line of fire. Much of New Jersey seems to be in danger, and, while she has friends in the Scarsdale area, it seems they might be in some danger too.
 
Here are my questions for anyone familiar with the area and conditions:

1. Would you evacuate if you were in a Zone B/C area before the City requires it? It seems like, even if the chances of serious flooding are minimal, waiting until you know for sure might be too late, since there will be no way to get out of there.
 

2. Will taxis be operating in Manhattan Sunday morning (even when the buses and subways are offline)?
 

3. Where off of Manhattan island would you recommend trying to find a moderately priced, safe hotel room? Should I be looking in New Jersey (it seems like there are few places there that are not kind of close to a river at least), or more update or western New York?
 

[PGage]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Joe Hass <hassg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. Would you evacuate if you were in a Zone B/C area before the City
> requires it? It seems like, even if the chances of serious flooding are
> minimal, waiting until you know for sure might be too late, since there will
> be no way to get out of there.

I would not. If I had a 22-year-old daughter at this exact moment
(8:45 AM ET Saturday), I'd tell her to shelter in place. It's hard to
say without knowing what, exactly, her living conditions are in terms
of the structure she's in, etc., but assuming she's in someplace that
has at least two floors, she should be fine.

The two quick reports I've found from NY1 and WNBC indicate that the
biggest risk is below Canal, south of where your daughter is, so as

long as she's prepared to bunker down, she should be fine. (SNIP)

Thanks to David, Joe and Ron for the info and advice. Looks like we are going with the hunker down approach (she is in a second floor apartment). I could not get her off the island by this morning anyway, and everything I have read, as reflected by the feedback here, is that unless she is directly flooded by the storm surge, the biggest danger would come from being out and hit by debris caught in the strong winds, so I am nixing any plan for her to walk or taxi to the hotel I found for her sunday morning. I did email her a map from her apartment to her closest evacuation site (a high school) just in case. I do keep hearing from people like sheriffs in North Carolina on TV that more people die in hurricanes from "inland flooding than coastal storm surge" (they repeat it just like that, as if it is a mantra in that part of the country) - but I am guessing that does not apply to a place like Manhattan (where rivers ring the edges, and do not thread through the mainland, and they have such an effective drainage system) - at least, I have not read any warnings about flooding in NYC from anything except storm surge or getting caught in the subways or tunnels.

Good luck to everyone from this list on the eastern seaboard - last week we were amused out here by the quake anxiety 300 miles from the epicenter of a 5.8; this week we are concerned about the destructive potential of a force that seems more powerful (and is more mysterious to those of us out west).

[Tom Wolper]

Do you know what her neighbors are doing? There are two sets of issues
with a storm like this, danger during the storm, and dealing with loss
of services in the days after. As others have said, she should be in
minimal danger if she stays indoors and away from upwind windows. And
if there is a ridiculous amount of flooding she can go upstairs in her
building. After the storm the power will probably be out for hours if
not days and it's possible that water service will be shut down. If
the first floor of buildings are subjected to flooding that means
grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaurants will be shut down
for days. If the tunnels flood and there's damage to the bridges, it's
possible that food delivery to stores will be delayed. If the
neighbors are around, this is one time that people instinctively stick
together and help each other out.

[do...@flids.net]

"last week we were amused out here by the quake anxiety 300 miles from the epicenter of a 5.8; this week we are concerned about the destructive potential of a force that seems more powerful (and is more mysterious to those of us out west). "

Not to downplay your concerns...hurricanes are serious business...but speaking as a guy down here in hurricane alley, you've probably hit the nail on the head there.  Most of your worry is likely caused by your lack of experience with them, just as everybody in Virginia was freaking out about "only a 5.8 quake."  As already pointed out, the biggest dangers are getting trapped at ground-level or lower during a storm surge, or being outside playing in the wind and getting hit by a shingle or other debris that gets peeled off the roof of a building.  If she's on the second floor, all she has to do is stay inside, away from the windows and she should be fine.  Bad case scenario, she may get a little nervous if the water rises higher than expected, and she sees it slowly creeping toward her up the stairs if the first floor gets flooded.  But that would take a pretty incredible storm surge for the water to rise to the 15+ feet you'd need to reach a second floor apartment.  I've already heard reports that Irene's not expected to get any stronger than Category I as it moves north, and likely will be downgraded to tropical storm strength by the time it reaches NYC.  If that happens, then it would be akin to what we refer to down here in Florida as "September".  :)

I'm sure she'll be fine, but I'll be pulling for you.  We may need the favor returned later this season.

Doug Fields

Tampa, FL

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] NO TV: Hurricane Info
From: PGage <pga...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, August 27, 2011 11:30 am
To: tvor...@googlegroups.com

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 5:59 AM, Joe Hass <hassg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. Would you evacuate if you were in a Zone B/C area before the City
> requires it? It seems like, even if the chances of serious flooding are
> minimal, waiting until you know for sure might be too late, since there will
> be no way to get out of there.

I would not. If I had a 22-year-old daughter at this exact moment
(8:45 AM ET Saturday), I'd tell her to shelter in place. It's hard to
say without knowing what, exactly, her living conditions are in terms
of the structure she's in, etc., but assuming she's in someplace that
has at least two floors, she should be fine.

The two quick reports I've found from NY1 and WNBC indicate that the
biggest risk is below Canal, south of where your daughter is, so as
long as she's prepared to bunker down, she should be fine. (SNIP)

Thanks to David, Joe and Ron for the info and advice. Looks like we are going with the hunker down approach (she is in a second floor apartment). I could not get her off the island by this morning anyway, and everything I have read, as reflected by the feedback here, is that unless she is directly flooded by the storm surge, the biggest danger would come from being out and hit by debris caught in the strong winds, so I am nixing any plan for her to walk or taxi to the hotel I found for her sunday morning. I did email her a map from her apartment to her closest evacuation site (a high school) just in case. I do keep hearing from people like sheriffs in North Carolina on TV that more people die in hurricanes from "inland flooding than coastal storm surge" (they repeat it just like that, as if it is a mantra in that part of the country) - but I am guessing that does not apply to a place like Manhattan (where rivers ring the edges, and do not thread through the mainland, and they have such an effective drainage system) - at least, I have not read any warnings about flooding in NYC from anything except storm surge or getting caught in the subways or tunnels.

Good luck to everyone from this list on the eastern seaboard - last week we were amused out here by the quake anxiety 300 miles from the epicenter of a 5.8; this week we are concerned about the destructive potential of a force that seems more powerful (and is more mysterious to those of us out west).

[PGage]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:06 AM, <do...@flids.net> wrote:

"last week we were amused out here by the quake anxiety 300 miles from the epicenter of a 5.8; this week we are concerned about the destructive potential of a force that seems more powerful (and is more mysterious to those of us out west). "

Not to downplay your concerns...hurricanes are serious business...but speaking as a guy down here in hurricane alley, you've probably hit the nail on the head there.  Most of your worry is likely caused by your lack of experience with them, just as everybody in Virginia was freaking out about "only a 5.8 quake."  As already pointed out, the biggest dangers are getting trapped at ground-level or lower during a storm surge, or being outside playing in the wind and getting hit by a shingle or other debris that gets peeled off the roof of a building.  If she's on the second floor, all she has to do is stay inside, away from the windows and she should be fine.  Bad case scenario, she may get a little nervous if the water rises higher than expected, and she sees it slowly creeping toward her up the stairs if the first floor gets flooded.  But that would take a pretty incredible storm surge for the water to rise to the 15+ feet you'd need to reach a second floor apartment.  I've already heard reports that Irene's not expected to get any stronger than Category I as it moves north, and likely will be downgraded to tropical storm strength by the time it reaches NYC.  If that happens, then it would be akin to what we refer to down here in Florida as "September".  :)

I'm sure she'll be fine, but I'll be pulling for you.  We may need the favor returned later this season.

Right - at least I am hoping you are right. I just got off the Skype with her and she said that New York Bohemians around her were all pretty cool when she was out last night, but this morning  a little more sober about things as they watch the news. As others have noted, it now seems unlikely they will be evacuating Zone B, so I told her to just stay inside. But Irene is so big and slow that even at tropical storm strength she will be pushing and dumping a lot of water on the east coast. One good piece of advice she got was to fill her bathtub with water before going to sleep tonight, in case they lose water pressure they can use it to flush their toilet. She did report very long lines at the local drug store (I think it is called Duane Reed - apparently a popular chain back there).

At the same time, I did see this morning the news of a man who was killed by a flying tree branch in North Carolina while I think checking on his property - there is an increased chance of bad things happening. Hope everyone back there stays safe.

[Jon Delfin]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:43 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 9:06 AM, <do...@flids.net> wrote:

[snip] She did

> report very long lines at the local drug store (I think it is called Duane
> Reed - apparently a popular chain back there).

Irrelevant sidebar: Duane Reade, named for the site of the original
warehouse supplying the first three stores (on Broadway between Duane
and Reade), before the chain began its expansion that threatens to
sink our island.

[Joe Hass]

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 11:52 AM, Jon Delfin <jond...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Irrelevant sidebar: Duane Reade, named for the site of the original
> warehouse supplying the first three stores (on Broadway between Duane
> and Reade), before the chain began its expansion that threatens to
> sink our island.

Even more irrelevant sidebar: Until us Chicago folks finally get our
sweet revenge for you New York weasels taking away the Marshall
Field's brand by slapping a bunch of Walgreens on your street corners.

[Jon Delfin]

We have Walgreens stores here as well, just not very many -- under
that name. But your revenge is complete, if you consider who owns
Duane Reade....

[Bob in Jersey]

Jon Delfin, to PGage:

> Irrelevant sidebar: Duane Reade, named for the site of the original
> warehouse supplying the first three stores (on Broadway between Duane
> and Reade), before the chain began its expansion that threatens to
> sink our island.

Fuelled by its acquisition (but not planned replacement, I'm told) by
Walgreens.



--
BOB

[Jennm_84]

Good luck to your daughter (though I'm sure she will be fine), and to
everyone on the east coast. I'm lucky to sit here in my Vegas home,
with a current "Severe Storm Warning" of Thunderstorms for the next
half hour. My thoughts go out to you all. Stay safe.

[Wesley McGee]

Earlier this week, the fear was that the storm would still be a category 2 or 3 when it reached Long Island and be moving a bit slower, too. Fortunately for all, it weakened slightly and may just barely be a category 1 hurricane at LI. I figure that also reduces the severity of any storm surge. By now, you know I live near DC and thus right now I'm in the midst of the fringe edge of the storm. It's pretty good winds, but nothing I haven't experienced with Isabel.

Now, there is some criticism that maybe The Weather Channel, usually a somewhat sober channel, has been a tad sensational (though again, the earlier forecasts were for a category 3-4 to hit NC, still be a category 3 off the Delmarva and at 2-3 in LI, as opposed to it weakening just before NC landfall).

http://j.mp/o8n6m9

[Bill Partsch]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the May Co., owner of Macy's and eraser of Marshall Field, Famous Barr, Stern's and a host of other local retail stalwarts, headquartered in Cincinnati?

[PGage]

I have to be honest, aside from Katrina I have not followed too closely the national coverages of Hurricanes in the past - it always seems so far removed from me. I do of course monitor the headlines regularly to see how things are going, but almost never have I just sat and watched the coverage for several continuous hours. Selfishly, now, of the 1.5 million or or so people in Manhattan and tens of millions in Irene's path, there is one person in particular that I am focusing on, so I have found myself watching CNN's hurricane coverage for long periods at a time (have also checked in with MSNBC and the WC). Wow - this kind of coverage is not very good. I was thinking I might come away saying something like: "the cable news networks suck at covering international affairs and domestic politics, but when it comes down to serious, practical events like hurricanes, they really prove their value". No. They seem to be almost (granted, not quite) as self-serving and sensational with Hurricane coverage as they are with anything else. Last night I actually saw one reporter on CNN tease a report by saying something like: "Joe in North Carolina has some vital information for us about Irene that just might save your life" [cut to an image of Joe in his weather suit for a second then] "we will get you right to that, after this". When they finally come back to Joe, he only tells us stuff that we have heard from three or four other people in the last hour.

And they hype the hell out of the most dramatic projections, without putting it at all into context. Pierce what's his name last night kept repeating the most extreme projections of how much flooding there would be in NYC (even though we had heard the expert who gave that extreme projection put all kinds of qualifiers and probability parameters around it - on his very own show). He asked another expert a question based on the max estimate, and the expert spent most of his time explaining why the max projection, while possible, was unlikely - and then spent the rest of his time saying that, while the more likely amount of flooding was less extreme and dramatic, there were still a few important things to keep in mind. Rather than focus on these few, more important and likely considerations, Pierce starts his first question to the next expert predicated on the same max projection that we have now heard two experts tell us was unlikely. He also decided that his go to question of the night was going to be, "If you were in Manhattan right now, would you stay"? This even though we had been hearing all day that most of Manhattan was not in any evacuation zone, and that only low lying and coastal areas were at real risk. But he did not even nuance the question that much - just asked everyone "you live in NYC - would you stay there tonight?". The people who lived in low lying areas (it looked like one person lived near Battery Park" said something like "no - they have already evacuated me, so I can't stay at home". While others said "of course, I have not been evacuated, so I am going to stay home".

All of this kind of freaked me out, but the more I watched the coverage, and monitored various internet sources, the more I noticed how much the TV reports were sensationalizing and inflating their coverage - I guess to hook suckers like me into watching them. It has the effect of decreasing my confidence in anything they report - and it also has the effect of overshadowing important, even critical information that is less sensational that people in effected areas still need to know.

Of course, less likely maximum consequences are still possible, and I don't mind them laying out the hi and lo estimates. But to base their coverage on the hi estimate of damage, and to relentlessly and constantly pump it, is really a disservice. I wish for the says when I had the local NYC channels through the dish so I could just monitor the local news coverage.

[Joe Hass]

We've never let the facts get in the way of a good argument around
here, and I'll be darned if I'm gonna start this now. ;)

[Kevin M.]

Interesting how you long for the local coverage, when I gave up on
that avenue of "news" back when I lived in San Diego. I'd just moved
to San Diego when the city became engulfed in billowing smoke and ash
thanks to nearby fires blazing out of control. This modern city --
"America's finest city" -- was brought to a halt. We had to stay
indoors with the windows closed or face certain death, or so the news
broadcasts kept telling us. The highlight of the coverage came when
one of the reporters asked local weather-bunny Aloha if the shifting
wind and changing temperatures were likely to have any impact on the
situation. Her response, "I don't know" without any subsequent
follow-up or any attempt to find someone on the planet who DID know
was enough for me to say goodbye to local news. Footnote: a few years
ago LA weatherman Fritz Coleman signed on to do double-duty and
provide weather to San Diegans, because -- really -- does it even
matter?

I'm avoiding the coverage, only periodically checking the blurbs on
various websites. I hope everyone can endure the lastest round of man
vs nature, but whether they do or don't, journalists won't aid the
process.

> --
> TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvor...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en

--
Kevin M. (RPCV)

[Melissa P]

St. Louis, I thought. And, I thought Macy's bought May. But what do I
know.

-----Original Message-----
From: tvor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvor...@googlegroups.com] On
Behalf Of Bill Partsch
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2011 6:00 PM
To: tvor...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] NO TV: Hurricane Info

--

[Terry Knab]

Macy's/Federated which is HQ'ed in Cincy bought May which was HQ'ed in St
Louis.

So, Macys is run from Cincinnati, just up the street from WKRP's fictitious
Flimm building and the Kroger HQ. (Macy's is at 7 W. 7th street, Flimm is
617 Vine, not too far away, Kroger is up the street on Vine.)

[David Bruggeman]

Well, local DC coverage has not been that informative, and often quite repetitive.  In other words, just like normal.  For all the legitimate criticism of The Weather Channel, it's probably the best available televised source.  Probably better to go to NOAA, weather.gov, or local government sites.

David

---

From: Kevin M. <drunkba...@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: NO TV: Hurricane Info

[Scott Fouru]

As usual, Melissa knows a lot. The May Company was a St Louis
institution, until they were purchased by Federated Department Stores
[FDS], of Cincinnati. After their assimilation of all the upper-mid-
market department store retailing in the US was complete, they changed
their corporate name to reflect the best known name of all their
divisions and became simply "Macy's Inc" [NYSE: M].

Before that change, they renamed all the acquired stores which were
not closed due to market overlap or antitrust concerns to "Macy's" and
now only operate two store brands: Macy's and Bloomingdale's.

Further irrelevant sidebar: Macy's is, AFAIK, only one of two major US
retailers which still owns its own credit card portfolio.



______

[Scott Fouru]

Though too late now, something to keep in mind for the next local non-
snow emergency is evacuation to that forgotten part of New York, ie,
upstate.

If I were wanting to evacuate and were able to obtain transportation,
I would have planned an impromptu weekend trip to Buffalo (though not
the place to go when winter emergencies strike). Perhaps that should
have been the spotlighted location for last weekend's New York Times
series, instead of "36 Hours In Portland".

For those wanting a slightly snarky (as is its wont) look at hurricane
fever in New York, New York Magazine's Daily Intel blog does a pretty
good job:
<http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/08/
hurricane_watch_2011_the_wrath.html>

As mentioned in one of the 'updates', apparently most New Yorkers do
not keep a two-day supply of food in their apartments (or, I would
add, flashlights).



_____

[stannc]

Interesting that Brian Williams broke into the network tonight at about 10:20pm ET (during a commercial break in L&O) for a storm update, but WNBC in New York chose to stay with local standing with a microphone and filling time. I'd think that the local anchors could use the break, even if it's for Sue Simmons to stop giggling for five minutes.

[stannc]

and on the flip side, Brian Williams is on WNBC's news coverage at the desk with the local anchors (Chuck & Sue) and they haven't picked it up on the network.

[Ed Dravecky]

Scott Fouru <pede...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As mentioned in one of the 'updates', apparently most New Yorkers do
> not keep a two-day supply of food in their apartments (or, I would
> add, flashlights).

Ah, because New York never has bad weather or blackouts. No, wait...

As a former Boy Scout who grew up in tornado country, I've got more
flashlights than I care to count (including a bunch of LED models I
picked up for 99 cents each at Fry's) and always keep a few weeks
worth of food in the house. Any emergency lasting longer than that
probably ends with zombies or an invading army roaming the streets.

--
Ed Dravecky III
http://www.fencon.org/

[Terry Knab]

Directv currently has WJLA up on one of its channels with non stop coverage.

[Michael]

Apropos of nothing but TV-related stuff, Jack Benny's wife/girlfriend
Mary Livingston was said to work at the May Company in L.A. as part of
Benny's fictionalized comedy life on his program.

[Jon Delfin]

Woke up at 7 and watched a half-hour of WCBS's "news." In quotes,
because for the entire 30 minutes, it was nothing but live location
shots, reporters saying the same thing over and over, and no actual
information about the storm's progress. (The meteorologist was taking
a nap?)

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "saturation coverage."

jd

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Terry Knab <te...@knab.org> wrote:
> Directv currently has WJLA up on one of its channels with non stop coverage.
>
>
>

[PGage]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Jon Delfin <jond...@gmail.com> wrote:

Woke up at 7 and watched a half-hour of WCBS's "news." In quotes,
because for the entire 30 minutes, it was nothing but live location
shots, reporters saying the same thing over and over, and no actual
information about the storm's progress. (The meteorologist was taking
a nap?)

Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "saturation coverage."

I have been up all night watching the coverage on CNN (which also showed local NY CBS and ABC coverage) and the local NYC ABC coverage on my computer. It was odd how little actual information they had about the progress of the storm - I got the impression that the official agency only put out updates every hour or so, and they were not sure what to say in between. The CNN meteorologist (a woman) was pretty much low balling the impact on Manhattan for several hours, and kept saying it was probably no longer a hurricane, then the rain intensified, and the 8:00 (ET) report said it was still a hurricane (the CNN meteorologist was still very skeptical about that).

As far as the pictures and live shots go, the ABC affiliate by far seemed to be doing the best job, better than the CBS people, and much better than John King with CNN. The best action shots were from Long Beach (which I now know is on the southern coast of Long Island) - the ABC people got a nice live shot of a pretty large life guard structure moving off its foundation and floating into the boardwalk. For some reason the ABC people had nice, clear video and good audio, while King on CNN could hardly be understood most of the time, and his video kept going in and out. Another problem with ÇNN's coverage is that Anderson Cooper is anchoring it from a street corner in what looks like Greenwich Village; the location is an interesting choice - it is not very dramatic or visual, but I am willing to give them credit for giving us a sense of what maybe the experience of most people in Manhattan would be, as opposed to the experience of relatively few people within a block or two of the rivers. But the problem is Cooper does not have a monitor, and so can not see what his reporters are showing the audience.

In general, there seems to be a strange disconnection between the reporters in Manhattan, who so far seem a little disappointed that the storm has not been as severe as promised, and the reporters in places like the coast of New Jersey and Long Island, who are getting a few of those more typical hurricane hero shots (as I type this I see CNN showing footage of a local CBS reporter getting blown pretty good on one of the boardwalks, and yelling "lets get out of here)". I think CNN needs to have an anchor in the studio who can integrate the live reports with information about the nature and progress of the storm, and give more of an overview of what is happening. In general the story seems to be that it is not as bad as the worst estimates (and the constant hype), but that it is not over yet, and could still get worse.

[Bill Partsch]

I got my wires crossed there. Right city, wrong company. Atypical of me to blame the victim.

[Bob in Jersey]

Did the NYC govt ever issue further evac orders beyond Zone A?

We lost power at dad's house ~11.15 east, but it was only out till
~2.45, apparently. Dad was unusually up at that hour, desperately
trying to win a penny auction, but his bids were still only in the sub-
dollar range when the cutoff occurred... ended up the item went for ~
$2.50.

Not much outage in town, except probably downtown by the still-rising
river. We're well above flooding areas.



--
BOB

[PGage]

No, they mandated evacuation of Zone A on Friday, and never did Zone B or C. Turns out all of the calm and rational advice I received here and online was correct; If you lived in Manhattan in Zone A you really were better off getting out of there (some buildings were full of water by this morning); otherwise, just make sure you have enough supplies and stay inside for the 24 hours, and you will be fine.

One of the many flaws in CNN's coverage was significant misinformation among its reporters. For example, Soledad O'brien, who was reporting from the Meat Packing district near the Hudson River, kept saying that Zone A (where she was reporting from) was a mandatory evac area, while Zone B was a strongly recommended but voluntary evac area. I am quite sure this is mistaken - I called a number of places on Friday and asked this question specifically - Zones B and C were not recommended to evacuate at any time - in fact, to the extent that there was any official recommendation for people in these Zones, it was to shelter in place unless and until ordered to evacuate. Another mistake repeatedly made by Soledad and several other CNN reporters was saying, very authoritatively, that while the rain and wind had not hit Manhattan very hard up to that point, "we KNOW it is going to get really bad soon". Not only did that never happen (the last time she said that she was in fact experiencing the rain as bad as it would get - I guess the wind might have gotten worse on the back side of the storm, I'm not sure, but by then and real threat to Manhattan was past) but the weather expert on CNN had already said several times on her air that it was not going to get much worse.

CNN's coverage got better when Candy Crowly (sp?) came on and did a real job anchoring the coverage, providing some cohesion and perspective, which Cooper was unable to do for whatever reason from his location (she seemed to be outside too, but also seemed to have access to a monitor and maybe a computer hooked to the internet, since she knew more stuff than the viewer, while Cooper most of the time seemed to know less stuff than the viewer).

[David Lynch]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:18, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

CNN's coverage got better when Candy Crowly (sp?) came on and did a real job anchoring the coverage, providing some cohesion and perspective, which Cooper was unable to do for whatever reason from his location (she seemed to be outside too, but also seemed to have access to a monitor and maybe a computer hooked to the internet, since she knew more stuff than the viewer, while Cooper most of the time seemed to know less stuff than the viewer).

I think Crowley was on the roof of the Washington bureau, whereas Cooper was just at some random street corner in Manhattan (I have no idea where.) I heard him mention at one point just before he handed over that he didn't even have a monitor to see what everyone else was reporting on.

--
David J. Lynch
djl...@gmail.com

[PGage]

Howie Kurtz, who I guess did not have a show this morning, dumps on the media hype of Irene
{http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/hurricane-irene-hype-how-the-media-went-overboard.html}

Excerpts:
"But the apocalypse that cable television had been trumpeting had failed to materialize. And at 9 a.m., you could almost hear the air come out of the media’s hot-air balloon of constant coverage when Hurricane Irene was downgraded to a tropical storm. Not everyone was willing to accept this turn of events. When the Weather Channel’s Brian Norcross told MSNBC that forecasters had been expecting the first hurricane to make landfall in New York City since 1893—“and it didn’t happen”—anchor Alex Witt was openly skeptical.Really, Brian?” she asked. Hadn’t Irene technically still been a hurricane when it came ashore in New York an hour earlier? “Can’t we still go with that?” No, Norcross said. (SNIP)

"I take nothing away from the journalists who worked around the clock, many braving the elements, to cover a hurricane that was sweeping its way from North Carolina to New England. But the tsunami of hype on this story was relentless, a Category 5 performance that was driven in large measure by ratings. Every producer knew that to abandon the coverage even briefly—say, to cover the continued fighting in Libya—was to risk driving viewers elsewhere." (SNP)
***************

I was actually watching MSNBC during the exchange Howie comments on above - to be fair, Witt's tone was rather ironic and self-aware, so it was not as bad as he is making it out to be, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. The cablesters had clearly smoked their own shit, and were bummed they were not going to have an Anderson Cooper, Katrina-like moment.

I don't mind them making viewers aware of the worse case scenarios, and encouraging viewers in the region to be prepared for them - that is only prudent. I have minded, a great deal, their tendency to confuse the worse case scenario with the most likely or modal scenario, and skewing all of their coverage in that direction. They also did a lot of cherry-picking of extreme images - something we know TV news does almost as a function of what it is. During the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 (which I always recall vividly in part because the same 22 year old daughter I have been worrying about this weekend in Manhattan was a three month old infant in my arms when it struck while I was watching the Giants and As play what for us was a huge World Series) the national news played on seeming endless loop shots of the Bay Bridge collapsing and the Marina on fire and a few other money shots, giving many in the country the impression that San Francisco was on the brink of falling apart (we had many relatives calling in a panic). The fact was that, while there were a few isolated areas in extremis, the vast majority of San Francisco was either just fine or only moderately impaired. In the same way, once the media realized that there would not be a lot of images of hipsters and investment bankers floating down the main streets of Manhattan on make-shift rafts, they spent almost all of their time showing images of a relatively few areas of relatively moderate river spillage (hyping it to the max, a la "Joe, is the river overflowing the banks?" Joe: "Yes, I can report that the waters of the Hudson river are at this moment rushing into the streets of Manhattan"). I saw almost no video of the 98% of river frontage and Manhattan streets that were not overflowing or flooded. They also showed a lot of admittedly dramatic footage from Long Beach, with sea water flooding under the boardwalk into the streets (but no context as to how deeply into the city the streets were flooded) - which, as Howie writes, but was never once reported during the many continuous hours I watched the live coverage of these images through the early morning hours: "Long Beach, it should be noted, is a narrow barrier island three feet above sea level and prone to flooding."

I am not pretending Casablanca like surprise that cable news outlets hype their stories to get ratings at the expense of reporting important information, but I guess I am surprised at how relentlessly they did this in what could have been serious and life-threatening situations, and I guess I am pissed since, selfishly, in this case I had skin in the game and so felt obliged to expose myself to their shameful tactics (and was emotionally vulnerable to them, however cynical I tried to make myself).

[donz5]

I'm late to this party, having stayed up all night to watch the
coverage. Sorry I missed your early concerns, Dr. Page; I would have
concurred with those who suggested your daughter stay where she was,
and it turned out that that was her best option.

Channel surfing throughout the night and morning, I found that:

(1) CNN simply sucks, for all the reasons previously stated, plus I
realize that I can no longer stand Wolf Blitzer. He has an air of
false authority, speaking as if he as a clue what he's talking about
when he clearly doesn't. After his ass is handed him, I suspect he'll
end up on Matt Drudge's site.

(2) MSNBC wasn't much better -- too bright and brittle; ok for me for
political coverage but for this.

(3) I turned to Fox just once to hear the anchor erroneously report
that all of Washington Bridge was shut down (it was just the lower
level) and that Obama had pledged recovery support to Puerto Rico,
without mentioning that he had also ok'd emergency relief to NJ and
all other affected states. The snark quotient flew off the charts.
Enough of that idiocy.

(4) WABC: I agree -- they had the best shots, but the reporting was
mediocre.

(5) WCBS: turned to it only when other stations went on break, so
can't really judge it fairly.

(6) WNBC: to me, the best of the lot. Despite Sue's tendency to want
to make light of the most serious calamities (she seems forever either
drunk or stoned), Chuck held it together. It was a "warmer" broadcast,
not prone to hyperbolic sensationalism. Also, I liked how some of the
on-the-scene reporters adjusted in their performances: When they were
on MSNBC, they evoked formal, serious; but on WNBC, they came across
as familiar, friendly. I'm thinking specifically of Ann Thompson and
Matt Taibbi. Some of the local reporters were too full of themselves
(one was too self-pleased with his "look at this amazing video I --
me! shot" attitude and another who said "rock 'n' roll" one too many
times), but on the whole they were ok.

The highlight, for me, was Brian Williams' cameo walk-on described
earlier; he pretty much ended up doing his stand-up, cracking up much
of the staff. And today he filled in solo for an hour at 1 PM. Classy
guy.

[David Lynch]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 14:27, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

Howie Kurtz, who I guess did not have a show this morning, dumps on the media hype of Irene
{http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/hurricane-irene-hype-how-the-media-went-overboard.html}

Kurtz gets a huge benefit from the fact that, as a media critic, he pretty gets to wait until the storm is over and then tell people they did it wrong. I wouldn't say that New York dodged a bullet, but it turned out to be a much smaller caliber than it could have been. The prediction was for a category two storm on Friday morning, if not later. If the reverse had come to pass -- that Irene was forecast to weaken to a tropical storm just as it hit NYC but actually was a category 2 hurricane, I'm sure he'd be complaining that there wasn't enough attention being given to Irene before it came and caused billions in damage. And, honestly, when you look at the accuracy of the forecasts for Irene relative to the statistics, the National Hurricane Center (who absolutely everyone relies on heavily when it comes to forecasting hurricanes) did a hell of a job with this one.

Irene got more coverage than it might have if not for hitting New York, but I think that the prediction of a category 2 storm hitting a major metropolitan area would have been big news, even if it had been somewhere like Miami or Houston that would shrug off a less-intense cyclone. By the time it became clear that Irene was going to be somewhat weaker than had been forecast, it was too late to ratchet down the hype machine. Anchors had been called in on a weekend, reporters sent out into the field, satellite trucks rented, etc. etc. so the show must go on and they had to make do with what they could find. I've also gotten the impression that flooding has been much worse in the suburbs than in the city itself, which, of course, means it's ignored.

[PGage]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 1:46 PM, donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:

(SNIP) Channel surfing throughout the night and morning, I found that:

(1) CNN simply sucks, for all the reasons previously stated, plus I

realize that I can no longer stand Wolf Blitzer. (SNIP)

(2) MSNBC wasn't much better -- too bright and brittle; ok for me for

political coverage but for this. (SNIP)

(4) WABC: I agree -- they had the best shots, but the reporting was
mediocre.

(6) WNBC: to me, the best of the lot. (SNIP)

Thanks Donz.I agree with all of the above, except that I was not able to get the WNBC feed over the internet (it kept asking me to restart my browser to get something like 32 bit something, and I did not want to take the time to do that). Somebody else told me that was the best local coverage to monitor, and maybe in retrospect I should have done it.  I switched between CNN and MSNBC, but did not think to check out NBC (much of this was like 2 and 3 in the morning out here) and then read that the Today crew was covering the story there. Take it you are safe and sound.

[Joe Hass]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:46 PM, donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:
> (SNIP) Also, I liked how some of the

> on-the-scene reporters adjusted in their performances: When they were
> on MSNBC, they evoked formal, serious; but on WNBC, they came across
> as familiar, friendly. I'm thinking specifically of Ann Thompson and

> Matt Taibbi. (SNIP)

If that's the Anne Thompson from NBC, then I'm thrilled, having been a
huge fan of hers from her days in Detroit at WDIV. She was much
beloved for her reporting back then, and I'm glad she's still got the
proverbial chops.

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:31 PM, David Lynch <djl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Kurtz gets a huge benefit from the fact that, as a media critic, he pretty
> gets to wait until the storm is over and then tell people they did it wrong.
> I wouldn't say that New York dodged a bullet, but it turned out to be a much
> smaller caliber than it could have been. The prediction was for a category
> two storm on Friday morning, if not later. If the reverse had come to pass
> -- that Irene was forecast to weaken to a tropical storm just as it hit NYC
> but actually was a category 2 hurricane, I'm sure he'd be complaining that
> there wasn't enough attention being given to Irene before it came and caused
> billions in damage. And, honestly, when you look at the accuracy of the
> forecasts for Irene relative to the statistics, the National Hurricane
> Center (who absolutely everyone relies on heavily when it comes to
> forecasting hurricanes) did a hell of a job with this one.
>
> Irene got more coverage than it might have if not for hitting New York, but
> I think that the prediction of a category 2 storm hitting a major
> metropolitan area would have been big news, even if it had been somewhere
> like Miami or Houston that would shrug off a less-intense cyclone. By the
> time it became clear that Irene was going to be somewhat weaker than had
> been forecast, it was too late to ratchet down the hype machine. Anchors had
> been called in on a weekend, reporters sent out into the field, satellite
> trucks rented, etc. etc. so the show must go on and they had to make do with
> what they could find. I've also gotten the impression that flooding has been
> much worse in the suburbs than in the city itself, which, of course, means
> it's ignored.

I completely and totally disagree. This is a common excuse: "We've
sent a reporter, so we might as well use the video, even if it there's
nothing there." Now let me introduce you to someone called an
"editor", who, in theory, should be able to make what are called
"editorial decisions" in what you use and what you don't. You'd
ideally like a grownup in that chair. Now, I'm aware that this is not
what usually happens in real life, but you know what? I think it's
okay to hold people to a little higher standard.

I have a Facebook friend who posted a link to a huge climate change
denier who proceed to say that it really wasn't a hurricane because he
found four random data points that showed onshore winds at less than
50 MPH, so therefore the media *and* the government were lying. I said
(in a much larger form), "You're really going to argue that NOAA is
lying?" At which point she said "Well, I mean the media's lying. And I
don't trust a government official." This is what the behavior leads
to: people just start believing that everything's a lie. There's, of
course, no right answer.

[PGage]

I think I dispute some of this David. While the storm was predicted to be Category 2 when it hit North Carolina (and I believe that is what happened), as early as Friday morning lots of experts were saying that it would likely be Category 1 by the time it got to NYC - and some were saying it might even be Tropical Storm by then, which it was (caveat here, my Friday morning is 3 hours earlier than NY Friday morning, so that might be part of the discrepancy). This is what I mean by the cablers regularly confusing worst case scenarios (it might be Category 2) with most likely scenarios (which by Friday morning I believe was Category 1).

Additionally, the point of critics like Howie (and myself) is not that this was a non-story, or not deserving of high-volume coverage (it was an important story, and justified a lot of investment of resources and time in coverage). The point is that the nature of the coverage was focused on fanning anxiety in order to create viewer interest and decrease viewer turn-over during commercials. Instead of providing sober reportage that viewers could consume on as needed basis, they are motivated to create viewer dependency on their coverage by over-emphasizing the most dramatic and frightening aspects of the story.

I don't blame CNN for making me stay up all night watching a glorified weather report 3000 miles away from home - my own neurotic anxiety about a (newly) grown child is the source of that, and I take responsibility for it. I do blame them for giving me a distorted understanding of what was going on 3000 miles away, and significantly complicating the planning and decision-making process for the event. By Friday night we (my wife and I) were pretty clear the Hurricane would not be Category 2 by the time it got to NYC, and were just trying to figure out how extensive the fall out from a Category 1 would be. It turns out CNN knew pretty accurately what the Category 1 fall out would be, and new it would likely be Category 1 or higher, but spent the vast majority of its on air time talking about what the Category 2 consequences - without even doing us the service of clearly labeling what they were doing. I repeatedly found myself Friday afternoon and evening trying to resolve what seemed like an unacknowledged contradiction between what almost all of the experts interviewed on CNN were saying (this will be a Cat 1 or Trop Storm by the time it gets to NYC) and the near hysterical commentary/advice from CNN reporters and anchors that people should be getting out of lower Manhattan (with little or nor attention to the subtleties of which Zone people were in). Relatively few people in Manhattan, and even in lower Manhattan, live in the Zone A areas, so this seemed that CNN was saying that even if you are not in Zone A, the smart thing to do was to evacuate. It took me a while, but I eventually figured out that this was not accurate, and that unless you were in Zone A, the smart thing to do was stay home.

[Melissa P]

He also made a cameo appearance on the NBC affiliate here where he made fun
of reporter Pat Collins' hat:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Brian_Williams_on_Pat_Collins
_Washington_DC-128560243.html

BTW fortunately I didn't lose power, but Comcast service has been
intermittent all day.

-----Original Message-----
From: tvor...@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvor...@googlegroups.com] On

[PGage]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Melissa P <takingup...@gmail.com> wrote:

He also made a cameo appearance on the NBC affiliate here where he made fun
of reporter Pat Collins' hat:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Brian_Williams_on_Pat_Collins
_Washington_DC-128560243.html

BTW fortunately I didn't lose power, but Comcast service has been
intermittent all day.

I read somewhere this morning/last night, I think on twitter but now I can't find it, that Netflix feeds went down over part of the East Coast, This might have been sarcastic.

Glad Melissa is ok - looks like the DC contingent of this list came through none the worse for wear.

[PGage]

OTOH....
Nate Silver just tweeted: "Per my research, which I'll be writing up later, Irene received only the 13th most media coverage among Atlantic hurricanes since 1980."

http://twitter.com/#!/fivethirtyeight

Will be interesting to read his analysis, though given a background norm of media over-hype, this does not really counter the criticisms I have had of the coverage (which I don't think was too much in volume, but too histrionic in tone).

[Dave Sikula]

It was more than fictional. Benny was playing the Orpheum in Los
Angeles and would frequent the May Company store across Broadway to
court Sadie Marks, whom he had known from Seattle (she had a crush on
him and he had ignored her). Legend has it that he bought so much
hosiery from her she set a store record.

--Dave Sikula

[David Lynch]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:54, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 2:31 PM, David Lynch <djl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 14:27, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

Howie Kurtz, who I guess did not have a show this morning, dumps on the media hype of Irene
{http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/28/hurricane-irene-hype-how-the-media-went-overboard.html}

Kurtz gets a huge benefit from the fact that, as a media critic, he pretty gets to wait until the storm is over and then tell people they did it wrong. I wouldn't say that New York dodged a bullet, but it turned out to be a much smaller caliber than it could have been. The prediction was for a category two storm on Friday morning, if not later. If the reverse had come to pass -- that Irene was forecast to weaken to a tropical storm just as it hit NYC but actually was a category 2 hurricane, I'm sure he'd be complaining that there wasn't enough attention being given to Irene before it came and caused billions in damage. And, honestly, when you look at the accuracy of the forecasts for Irene relative to the statistics, the National Hurricane Center (who absolutely everyone relies on heavily when it comes to forecasting hurricanes) did a hell of a job with this one.

Irene got more coverage than it might have if not for hitting New York, but I think that the prediction of a category 2 storm hitting a major metropolitan area would have been big news, even if it had been somewhere like Miami or Houston that would shrug off a less-intense cyclone. By the time it became clear that Irene was going to be somewhat weaker than had been forecast, it was too late to ratchet down the hype machine. Anchors had been called in on a weekend, reporters sent out into the field, satellite trucks rented, etc. etc. so the show must go on and they had to make do with what they could find. I've also gotten the impression that flooding has been much worse in the suburbs than in the city itself, which, of course, means it's ignored.

I think I dispute some of this David. While the storm was predicted to be Category 2 when it hit North Carolina (and I believe that is what happened), as early as Friday morning lots of experts were saying that it would likely be Category 1 by the time it got to NYC - and some were saying it might even be Tropical Storm by then, which it was (caveat here, my Friday morning is 3 hours earlier than NY Friday morning, so that might be part of the discrepancy). This is what I mean by the cablers regularly confusing worst case scenarios (it might be Category 2) with most likely scenarios (which by Friday morning I believe was Category 1).

I just looked through the NHC archive and it's less clear about the strength than I remember seeing, so it could be that my memory or some forecaster I saw/heard/read confused "could be category 2" and "will be category 2". The 5 AM EDT advisory from Friday -- which the east coast woke up to -- predicted a strong category 2 over Albemarle Sound, NC on the wee hours of Sunday and a tropical storm over western Maine on the wee hours of Monday, with no intermediate predictions. (This was when Irene was still supposed to hit NC as a major hurricane.) By 11 AM Eastern (8 AM Pacific), they had a forecast point just offshore from Atlantic City, or 70 miles due south of the southern tip of Staten Island, with an intensity right near the cat 1/cat 2 line. I wouldn't rule out a category 2 storm over/near NYC from either of these forecasts, but it's not explicit.
  

Additionally, the point of critics like Howie (and myself) is not that this was a non-story, or not deserving of high-volume coverage (it was an important story, and justified a lot of investment of resources and time in coverage). The point is that the nature of the coverage was focused on fanning anxiety in order to create viewer interest and decrease viewer turn-over during commercials. Instead of providing sober reportage that viewers could consume on as needed basis, they are motivated to create viewer dependency on their coverage by over-emphasizing the most dramatic and frightening aspects of the story.

I disagree with your interpretation of his piece here. When he makes comments like "Every producer knew that to abandon the coverage even briefly—say, to cover the continued fighting in Libya—was to risk driving viewers elsewhere", that's not about the tone of the coverage, it's about the quantity of coverage. He does take them to task for their tone as well, but that wasn't the only thing he criticized.
 

I don't blame CNN for making me stay up all night watching a glorified weather report 3000 miles away from home - my own neurotic anxiety about a (newly) grown child is the source of that, and I take responsibility for it. I do blame them for giving me a distorted understanding of what was going on 3000 miles away, and significantly complicating the planning and decision-making process for the event. By Friday night we (my wife and I) were pretty clear the Hurricane would not be Category 2 by the time it got to NYC, and were just trying to figure out how extensive the fall out from a Category 1 would be. It turns out CNN knew pretty accurately what the Category 1 fall out would be, and new it would likely be Category 1 or higher, but spent the vast majority of its on air time talking about what the Category 2 consequences - without even doing us the service of clearly labeling what they were doing. I repeatedly found myself Friday afternoon and evening trying to resolve what seemed like an unacknowledged contradiction between what almost all of the experts interviewed on CNN were saying (this will be a Cat 1 or Trop Storm by the time it gets to NYC) and the near hysterical commentary/advice from CNN reporters and anchors that people should be getting out of lower Manhattan (with little or nor attention to the subtleties of which Zone people were in). Relatively few people in Manhattan, and even in lower Manhattan, live in the Zone A areas, so this seemed that CNN was saying that even if you are not in Zone A, the smart thing to do was to evacuate. It took me a while, but I eventually figured out that this was not accurate, and that unless you were in Zone A, the smart thing to do was stay home.

Perhaps I'm overly cynical, but whenever I watch rolling cable news coverage, I go into it with the expectation that it will be one part new factual information, two parts repetition of whatever pieces of factual information will get viewers stay tuned, and several parts speculation and innuendo, especially about how the situation could change at any moment. The empty podium shot is a classic example. Sure, the sheriff/mayor/governor/president isn't there now, but he will be, and you don't want to miss that, do you? Some perspective would be nice, but there's also the saying about how it usually isn't news when a plane doesn't crash or the river doesn't flood, so I don't really expect it out of people whose job it is to keep me glued to my TV as much as possible.

All of this is one of the reasons I find myself turning more and more to Twitter and live blogs for events where the situation actually might change minute-to-minute, then waiting for a traditional news broadcast or commentary show (e.g., Rachel Maddow) to sum everything up. Getting your breaking news from the web can be like drinking from a fire hose and you don't necessarily get a whole lot of deep analysis, but I find it better than the vapidity of cable news.

[Michael]

Cool. As it happens, Mary (Sadie) has a star on Hollywood Blvd. near
the entrance to the Outpost Building where I occasionally worked for a
production company over the past few years. By the way, Mary's star is
right near a star dedicated to Benny's frenemy Fred Allen and the
stars of two tragic H-wood figures: Fatty Arbuckle and George Reeves.

[JW]

> As usual, Melissa knows a lot. The May Company was a St Louis
> institution, until they were purchased by Federated Department Stores
> [FDS], of Cincinnati. After their assimilation of all the upper-mid-
> market department store retailing in the US was complete, they changed
> their corporate name to reflect the best known name of all their
> divisions and became simply "Macy's Inc" [NYSE: M].
>
> Before that change, they renamed all the acquired stores which were
> not closed due to market overlap or antitrust concerns to "Macy's" and
> now only operate two store brands: Macy's and Bloomingdale's.

And before that, Federated decided that it would be more efficient to
rename the established local stores that they had bought up. So all of
the sudden, Pittsburghers who had been shopping at Horne's for decades
got to shop at Lazarus, which was a meaningless name outside its roots
in Ohio. At least Federated only had to design one ad for all the
markets involved, even if the information on Indianapolis store hours
wasn't useful for most of the potential customers in other cities who
saw it.

After the acquisition of May, they went with the Macy's and
Bloomingdale's names, which at least had some cachet nationally.

[PGage]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:50 PM, David Lynch <djl...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:54, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think I dispute some of this David. While the storm was predicted to be Category 2 when it hit North Carolina (and I believe that is what happened), as early as Friday morning lots of experts were saying that it would likely be Category 1 by the time it got to NYC - and some were saying it might even be Tropical Storm by then, which it was (caveat here, my Friday morning is 3 hours earlier than NY Friday morning, so that might be part of the discrepancy). This is what I mean by the cablers regularly confusing worst case scenarios (it might be Category 2) with most likely scenarios (which by Friday morning I believe was Category 1).

I just looked through the NHC archive and it's less clear about the strength than I remember seeing, so it could be that my memory or some forecaster I saw/heard/read confused "could be category 2" and "will be category 2". The 5 AM EDT advisory from Friday -- which the east coast woke up to -- predicted a strong category 2 over Albemarle Sound, NC on the wee hours of Sunday and a tropical storm over western Maine on the wee hours of Monday, with no intermediate predictions. (This was when Irene was still supposed to hit NC as a major hurricane.) By 11 AM Eastern (8 AM Pacific), they had a forecast point just offshore from Atlantic City, or 70 miles due south of the southern tip of Staten Island, with an intensity right near the cat 1/cat 2 line. I wouldn't rule out a category 2 storm over/near NYC from either of these forecasts, but it's not explicit.

Right. This is consistent with my experience following CNN most of Friday Morning (PT) - except that I am very clear that the experts being interviewed were saying that (with ample caveats about the difficulties of predicting such a complex, dynamic event) Irene was most likely to be Cat 1 by the time she got to NYC. It is also consistent with my main criticism of CNN - which is that they way their anchors and reporters covered the lead up to the story over-emphasized the extreme estimates, and under-emphasized that likely estimates, causing mis-perception and mis-understanding in its audience. I think the only reason I was more aware of the difference is that I was specifically focused on what the most likely intensity of the storm would be in NYC because my daughter was living in a Zone B (Category 2) Evacuation area.

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:50 PM, David Lynch <djl...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 16:54, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

  

Additionally, the point of critics like Howie (and myself) is not that this was a non-story, or not deserving of high-volume coverage (it was an important story, and justified a lot of investment of resources and time in coverage). The point is that the nature of the coverage was focused on fanning anxiety in order to create viewer interest and decrease viewer turn-over during commercials. Instead of providing sober reportage that viewers could consume on as needed basis, they are motivated to create viewer dependency on their coverage by over-emphasizing the most dramatic and frightening aspects of the story.

I disagree with your interpretation of his piece here. When he makes comments like "Every producer knew that to abandon the coverage even briefly—say, to cover the continued fighting in Libya—was to risk driving viewers elsewhere", that's not about the tone of the coverage, it's about the quantity of coverage. He does take them to task for their tone as well, but that wasn't the only thing he criticized.

I do think CNN could have cut away for more brief segments on other important news events during its storm coverage Friday and Saturday (they did a little of this). Doing so would not have decreased in any appreciable way the emphasis they were giving Irene, which in general was justified. Howie is not saying that CNN should have just treated Irene like one of several important stories over the weekend; he is saying that they should have covered the story in a way dictated by what would most inform its viewers. Cutting to a 5 minute update on Libya would not have meant CNN should have invested less money or resources in covering Irene; the reason they did not do it very much is not because they thought the Hurricane story required 58 minutes of every hour, but because they were afraid of losing audience share to a cable competitor. CNN could have devoted just as many resources to this story, and 10 fewer minutes per hour in the days before landfall, and not have substantially reduced their coverage.

[Ed Dravecky]

donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:
> (2) MSNBC wasn't much better -- too bright and brittle; ok for me for
> political coverage but for this.

Having flipped around for much of Saturday night trying to find
coverage I could settle into, I found MSNBC actually had the best
organized anchor desk and the least hyperbolic coverage of the cable
networks. From the wee hours of Sunday morning until noon Eastern,
Alex Witt did a pretty amazing job of keeping coverage moving, didn't
dwell on the hype, and asked reasonable questions of guests and
reporters. MSNBC was also skeptical of NHC efforts to keep Irene a
hurricane when their own TWC meteorologist was saying it's a tropical
storm with a lot of storm surge.

Bonus: MSNBC wasn't using a lightning-flash background for their
coverage then way CNN was. It was darn near epilepsy inducing and
designed to catch the eye or ratchet up tension, not inform or provide
context.

[David Lynch]

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 19:36, Ed Dravecky <drav...@gmail.com> wrote:

donz5 <do...@aol.com> wrote:

> (2) MSNBC wasn't much better -- too bright and brittle; ok for me for
> political coverage but for this.

Having flipped around for much of Saturday night trying to find
coverage I could settle into, I found MSNBC actually had the best
organized anchor desk and the least hyperbolic coverage of the cable
networks. From the wee hours of Sunday morning until noon Eastern,
Alex Witt did a pretty amazing job of keeping coverage moving, didn't
dwell on the hype, and asked reasonable questions of guests and
reporters. MSNBC was also skeptical of NHC efforts to keep Irene a
hurricane when their own TWC meteorologist was saying it's a tropical
storm with a lot of storm surge.

Alex Witt's an old hand at doing breaking news coverage on her own. She has had the weekend shift at MSNBC forever and seems to be the only camera-ready person at 30 Rock on weekends between the Today show and Nightly News, because, if the news is big enough, they'll have her interrupt the MSNBC coverage and do a quick special report on the NBC network.

Unfortunately, she also just had her shift cut from four hours per weekend day to two so that frequent Maddow substitute Chris Hayes can get his own show without cutting back on the umpteen hours of "Lockup" and "To Catch a Predator" they air between Friday evening and Monday morning.

Bonus: MSNBC wasn't using a lightning-flash background for their
coverage then way CNN was. It was darn near epilepsy inducing and
designed to catch the eye or ratchet up tension, not inform or provide
context.

(MS)NBC seemed to be using the same hurricane graphics The Weather Channel has had for ages. I guess someone at Comcast figured out that it wasn't worth it to have three different networks each doing their own thing for the same news event.

[televisiongirl]

I live in Alphabet City so maybe I can help

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 12:52 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

1. Would you evacuate if you were in a Zone B/C area before the City requires it? It seems like, even if the chances of serious flooding are minimal, waiting until you know for sure might be too late, since there will be no way to get out of there.

I didn't leave and didn't plan on leaving.  I'm not one of those nuts who would stay no matter what but I've lived here for 20 years and except for that Nor'easter a few years ago that wound up blowing up to New England and being "The Perfect Storm" movie, big time flooding isn't usually a problem.  They showed Water Street being flooded but hey, it is called Water Street for a reason.

 

2. Will taxis be operating in Manhattan Sunday morning (even when the buses and subways are offline)?

There were taxis.  The City used the "zone system" they enforced during the subway strike from a few years ago.  There were plenty of cabs.  The buses were running in the late afternoon.  They hope to have the subways running sometime tomorrow.  Bloomberg totally over-reacted on that one.

 

3. Where off of Manhattan island would you recommend trying to find a moderately priced, safe hotel room? Should I be looking in New Jersey (it seems like there are few places there that are not kind of close to a river at least), or more update or western New York?

Can't help you there but if Manhattan is a problem, north Jersey isn't much better.  Looking at the upstate flooding, nothing is much better.

 The storm blew through around 8AM, my local coffee (non-Starbucks as there are non in Alphabet City) place was open by noon.  There are tree down in Tompkins Square Park but mostly, it was no different than Floyd, Isabel or any of the other storms that ran through here.

TVG

[Dave Feldman]

Virtually everyone I know who has Time-Warner Cable used NY1 as their
default station to watch courage. It was easy for us to sacrifice
some production values and disconcerting repetition for coverage from
reporters who know the city intimately and anchors who were low on
hype and high on warmth and humor. It turns out that a lot of Pat
Kiernan (http://www.ny1.com/content/about_ny1/staff_profiles/325/pat-
kiernan---morning-anchor) goes a long way; he's that cool, Canadian
head you want in a crisis, and it seemed like he was on the air
forever. He pairs beautifully with weekend anchor Kristen
Shaughnessy, who did such fine work at the World Trade Center on
9/11. Like many of you, I cringed at CBS's coverage, and frankly
didn't even think to watch CNN.

Viewers of NY1 are all local, so they tend to be interested in bread
and butter issues: When will the subway be up and running? Can I go
back home if I evacuated? Where are blackouts? Few viewers like to
watch wall-to-wall coverage, as we media junkies do, even during an
emergency. Repetition can be numbing, but it's good service
journalism.

[Wesley McGee]

On Aug 28, 6:38 pm, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Melissa P <takingupspace...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > He also made a cameo appearance on the NBC affiliate here where he made fun
> > of reporter Pat Collins' hat:
>

> >http://www.nbcwashington.com/on-air/as-seen-on/Brian_Williams_on_Pat_...

> > _Washington_DC-128560243.html
>
> > BTW fortunately I didn't lose power, but Comcast service has been
> > intermittent all day.
>
> I read somewhere this morning/last night, I think on twitter but now I can't
> find it, that Netflix feeds went down over part of the East Coast, This
> might have been sarcastic.
>
> Glad Melissa is ok - looks like the DC contingent of this list came through
> none the worse for wear.

Well, I'm holed up at a hotel because a very unfortunate tree right
behind my building fell atop a more unfortunate power line. At least
the building was fortunate that the tree fell the other way.

[Tom Wolper]

David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo wrote a good piece about the
hurricane and TV coverage:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/08/keep_your_wits_about_you.php

The main points are:

State and local governments don't rely on TV coverage when they make
disaster plans so TV hysteria doesn't cause them to overreact.

The storm passed over a number of major TV markets, notably DC and
NYC, and that's a reason for so much coverage.

The National Hurricane Center has become much better in tracking the
path of hurricanes in the last couple of years, and in the case of
Irene, it was a fairly uncomplicated storm and all of the tracking
models were consistent and accurate. The science of tracking the
intensity is nowhere near as good as tracking the path so long term
projections of intensity are worthless.

[PGage]

Is this a response to the Ron Pauls's of the world? I have not read much criticism of the NHC, or suggestions they were overreacting to TV News hysteria. I have read criticism of public officials, but I reject that. Shutting down the subways, evacuating the shorelines, these were all responsible and prudent decisions. I thought the President, governors and mayors all handled this situation very well. Closing down the subway system because of a real (even if less than 50%) threat to public safety is smart; putting a dozen cameras and reporters on a low-lying, narrow sea wall to get dramatic images that distort what is actually happening in the region, or hyping 48 hours in advance unlikely worst case scenarios as likely, to the exclusion of focus on more likely precautions, and using on screen text and graphics that exaggerate the impact of actual events - these are not the fault of the NHS, but market driven (as opposed to public service driven) cable news.

[Joe Hass]

Yes, in all likelihood. I have a Facebook friend who posted a link to
a climate change denier's blog (he's so high quality, his "about"
section still has the standard Word Press boilerplate) that
effectively accused NOAA of hyping their data about the hurricane
based on four data points he pulled from Weather Underground. In his
eyes, it wasn't even a tropical storm because at some point the winds
dropped to 40 MPH. These are the crazies who don't believe NOAA, the
NHC, or anyone related to the government. When I confronted her with
the question "Do you really believe that NOAA is deliberately
publishing false data to alarm the general public," her response was
"I don't believe ANYTHING just because 'an official' says so." Her
follow-up implication is that the media is regurgitating what NOAA/NHC
is saying, rather than noting that, if you read the updates themselves
(as many of us did), they had the wide range as we've discussed
earlier.

On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Is this a response to the Ron Pauls's of the world? I have not read much
> criticism of the NHC, or suggestions they were overreacting to TV News
> hysteria. I have read criticism of public officials, but I reject that.
> Shutting down the subways, evacuating the shorelines, these were all
> responsible and prudent decisions. I thought the President, governors and
> mayors all handled this situation very well. Closing down the subway system
> because of a real (even if less than 50%) threat to public safety is smart;
> putting a dozen cameras and reporters on a low-lying, narrow sea wall to get
> dramatic images that distort what is actually happening in the region, or
> hyping 48 hours in advance unlikely worst case scenarios as likely, to the
> exclusion of focus on more likely precautions, and using on screen text and
> graphics that exaggerate the impact of actual events - these are not the
> fault of the NHS, but market driven (as opposed to public service driven)
> cable news.
>