[opendtv] Re: Television for disaster coverage
- From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:06:41 -0500
For the most part these days I just get summary news from the Internet,
digging deeper occasionally as needed. But when something important is
happening like 9/11 or maybe a local hurricane then I like to have the
full bandwidth of TV video news.
However for most purposes national and world news is enough for me and I
spend almost no time watching local news. I can't imagine the current
market even begins to cost justify every station having a local news crew.
- Tom
Mark Schubin wrote:
> Happy Boxing Day!
>
> This will be largely a rehash of things that have appeared here
> previously, but I thought it might be worth reiterating them.
>
> - OTA TV vs. cable and satellite TV - When the 9/11 attacks happened,
> the TV transmission facilities on the World Trade Center were destroyed,
> but, except for a very brief interruption of one of the least viewed
> station's signals, cable and satellite carriage of all stations
> continued. Only WCBS-TV had a working transmitter in the Empire State
> Building (same as after the first World Trade Center attack 8.5 years
> earlier), so they were the only station receivable off-air via antenna.
> WCBS-TV's ratings went up, and the other stations' went down, until the
> other stations got back on the air. I think the only conclusion that
> can be drawn is that the increased ratings were due to off-air viewers
> using antennas.
>
> - Radio news vs. TV news -
>
> - Power failures - There is no question that radio is more likely
> than TV to be receivable during a power failure. There are many
> battery-operated TVs and many TV-sound radios (many models of the latter
> are now being sold specifically for disasters), but their numbers pale
> by comparison with portable radios. Distasters, however, are not
> necessarily accompanied by power failures. When the 9/11 attacks
> occurred, almost all of the New York market continued to be served with
> electric power. The same was true of our recent transit strike and the
> recent heavy northeast snowstorm.
>
> - News departments - Fewer than half (but not too much fewer than
> half) of U.S. TV stations have news departments. A MUCH smaller
> percentage of U.S. radio stations do. I have taken long drives across
> stretches of the U.S. without being able to find any news on the car radio.
>
> - Destroyed transmission facilities - When a hurricane knocks down
> towers or floods transmitters, the public searches for whatever they can
> get. In some cases, that might be TV rather than radio. I have been at
> my relatives' home in rural Colorado when weather has knocked out all of
> the radio translators -- and phone and Internet service -- but not the
> TV translator. At those times, we watch TV to find out what's going on.
>
> - Pictures - TV screens can present information beyond what a
> commentator says. The projected path of a hurricane or tornado is
> easily seen instantly on a map. A list of bridge closings can be
> presented as a rolling or crawling graphic.
> After 9/11, a local political candidate here in New York set up a
> TV tuned to WCBS-TV outside his campaign office and placed rows of
> folding chairs in front of it. The chairs were soon filled, even though
> the TV offered nothing TV viewers couldn't get at home. I can think of
> more than one possible explanation. Maybe people sought a sense of
> community. But maybe people who normally get their news from newspapers
> or radio (and didn't even own a TV) felt a need to watch TV during the
> disaster. Other than owning a TV, I am one of the latter.
>
> Personally, I get most of my local news from the three daily and three
> weekly local newspapers I read. Secondarily, I get news from a
> non-commercial radio news station, which, despite a sizable news
> department, usually rehashes stories from The New York Times (and which,
> after the post-transit-strike mediator-requested media blackout of the
> continuing negotiations, announced that we should "stay tuned for
> complete coverage of the media blackout"). Under normal circumstances,
> I do not watch TV news.
>
> That makes me an anomalous American. Most Americans prefer to get their
> local news via TV -- even Americans who prefer to get national and
> international news via the Internet, newspapers, or other sources. But
> when disasters happen even I turn to TV.
>
> Disasters are not normal circumstances. Neither are elections. I tune
> to some form of TV (sometimes our local cable-news channel, NY1) to
> watch the results at the bottom of the screen. I can quickly discover
> the results I want to know about long before radio commentators get to
> them (IF they ever bother to cover a local state-assembly or
> city-council district race).
>
> Sorry for the rehash, but it seemed necessary in view of recent posts.
>
> TTFN,
> Mark
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
> FreeLists.org
>
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org
- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.
Other related posts:
