[opendtv] Re: Television for disaster coverage
- From: Mark Schubin <tvmark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:21:02 -0500
One more tidbit, from the 9/11 Commission Report on communications
during the disaster, quoting a fire chief: "People watching on TV
certainly had more knowledge of what was happening a hundred floors
above us than we did..."
TTFN,
Mark
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:
