Inland Communities During Hurricanes

[StormScanWx]

It seems to me in every hurricane, ALL the attention is on the coast, you never hear about what is happening miles inland.

Take Katrina for example... You hear about New Orleans (right near the Gulf), Biloxi, and all the other populated COASTAL towns. Hardly ever did you hear about places such as New Augusta, Beaumont, and Poplarville, MS!

The media DOES NOT and probably WILL NOT ever focus on rural inland communities after a hurricane.

It's awful.

[brunota2003]

well...Waveland and Gulfport are ON the coast...did you hear anything about those areas post Katrina? I didn't...post Isabel there was some coverage on the inland effects though...but not much, places there were without power for 2+ weeks from a TROPICAL STORM due to the trees...

[GeneratorPower]

An example of this is Atmore, AL. I drove through Atmore about 24 hours after Hurricane Dennis hit. Atmore is about 30-40 miles inland. The destruction was unbelievable. There is also a town called Bagdad, FL near Pensacola. That place was completely ripped up.

They got a little bit of news coverage, but not much.

I suppose my question would be: What makes a city worthy of news coverage? Population? Extent of damage? Location of refineries, etc?

Why do the rural communities deserve more coverage? Perhaps they do, but why?

[StormScanWx]

Rural cities/towns/communities deserve more coverage than they are getting now, because they are not getting any. Also, lives are ruined because of hurricanes inland just as much as on the coast. It isn't fair for coastal towns/cities to get all the coverage IMO.

[JonathanBelles]

look at 2004, 3 hurricanes tore through lake wales and the rest of polk county, florida.

[StormScanWx]

well...Waveland and Gulfport are ON the coast...did you hear anything about those areas post Katrina?

Actually, yes I heard quite a bit about Waveland, Pass Christian and many other coastal communities, which is why I started this topic.

[GeneratorPower]

So, back to my question. What makes a community worthy of coverage?

A. Population size.

B. Extent of Damage.

C. Who lives there?

D. What is there (i.e., refineries, manufacturing, retail)

I just think that there has to be reason to get press coverage. The fact that lives have been destroyed is a VERY GOOD reason to get coverage. I'm asking what factors you think are most important for determining that.

Answers?

[GeneratorPower]

For example, one would naturally think that a town with 200 people that lost everything would receive twice the coverage of a town with 100 people that lost everything.

Or maybe a town with 10 refineries would get ten times the coverage of a town with 1 refinery? (hypothetical).

[Regit]

For example, one would naturally think that a town with 200 people that lost everything would receive twice the coverage of a town with 100 people that lost everything.

Or maybe a town with 10 refineries would get ten times the coverage of a town with 1 refinery? (hypothetical).

Actually, I think it comes down to two things:

Best photo oppotunities and best human tragedy stories. A town of 200 with major areas of damage and several deaths wins out over a town of 20,000 with some signs and tress blown over.

[GeneratorPower]

Actually, I think it comes down to two things:

Best photo oppotunities and best human tragedy stories. A town of 200 with major areas of damage and several deaths wins out over a town of 20,000 with some signs and tress blown over.

I like that part about photo ops and tragedy stories. I think that's absolutely right.

[GeneratorPower]

So the real answer may be that "the best story" is what gets on the air, rather than "the most tragic impact."

What this means is that StormScanWx has a point. The fact of the matter is that the best story, in the opinion of the journalist, gets the air time.

This can sometimes be totally "unfair". But that's life, I suppose.

[StormScanWx]

I hope CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and all the rest of the media reads this thread.

[storms in NC]

Well I did but that is cause I was there 16 miles east of Amite,La. When I drove thought Bogalusa a month after it still looked like a bomb had went off there.

[southerngale]

I agree. You do hear about the same places over and over when there's plenty of devastation in neighboring areas. I'm in Beaumont and you didn't hear much about it after Rita, but then again, you didn't hear much about Rita at all. By the time I got to Fort Worth after the hurricane (several days later), there was very little Rita coverage at all, even though entire towns were destroyed. We were looking for information, and got plenty on New Orleans and Katrina.

Here's some pics from Beaumont if you're interested: http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=79174

[Ivan14]

Wow southerngale those pics are amazing. I never knew Beaumont got it that bad. Thanks for shearing.

[baygirl_1]

Actually, I'd prefer the news media to stay away. After Hurricane Frederic, the news media reported that people in Mobile were starving and we were all living in the streets because our homes were totally destroyed! When we finally were able to get in touch with family in New England, they were gathering food and my uncles were preparing to drive it down here to help us. That was very nice of them, but my parents were well prepared for a storm, as was our neighborhood and everyone we knew. I was young, but I remember my father growling when he heard some of the stories the news was reporting about the post-storm conditions here. It was rough, but the news media, in my opinion (and this is just my opinion), tends to sensationalize/over-dramatize situations, at times. They are looking for a good story and want to get the ratings. And you certainly don't want news media hampering relief or recovery efforts.

[GeneratorPower]

The sad part is that, with few exceptions, the news media isn't factual, doesn't cover stories that need to be covered, and exhibits poor judgement and lazy reporting skills.

The good news is this has begun to change with newcomers to the market like FoxNews and many internet sources. Even these new sources have a long way to go, but at least people have a choice now. It used to be the "big 3" networks evening newscasts running the show.

[shaggy]

After Fran a news crew for ABC I think was filming a story on a street near us they were in frontt of the only house on the street to suffer any real damage ( had 5 trees on it and was really messed up) but the point is someone watching would imagine the whole city was like that when it was actually not that bad lots of trees down but overall we did ok for having winds gusting 100+.

I do agree however that coverage really depends on the area, if a major hurricane "might" affect Florida in 5 days it is all over the news (especially lately) but the year we got two hurricanes back to back (Bertha, Fran) or Floyd which caused thousands of homes to be flooded it was not covered nearly as much. However I think overall hurricanes are covered more closely the last 3-5 yrs.

[cajungal]

Most people think New Orleans is right on the Gulf. It is not. It is actually a good ways inland. The Houma area is way closer to the Gulf and we did not get much media attention. I am not talking to much about Katrina because we were spared the brunt by 50 miles. Only thing we really had was a lot of trees down and no power for several days. I am talking about Rita. Terrebonne Parish was under 8 ft of water and only our local news covered it. I don't recall it making news on the New Orleans or national news.

[HurricaneBill]

Off the top of my head, the only inland area that received coverage during a hurricane was Orlando during Hurricane Charley.