Turn Down the Heat

When the restrained folks at the National Weather Service call you out, maybe you've gone too far. We've all watched TV weather people go off the edge, repeatedly, with each storm but a lot of the over-the-top language is making it into print. And have you noticed how much more coverage and accompanying hysteria we get from TV for an East Coast storm  than a comparable--or far worse--storm in the Midwest or northern states?

On Tuesday, 48 hours before the storm was to hit, Accuweather called it "hurricane-like," a "monster," and a "powerful storm of historical proportions" that would wreak havoc from Pennsylvania to Maine and by Wednesday was using the term "snowicane."
That prompted a stern response from National Weather Service meteorologist Craig Evanego.
"It's almost inciting the public, inciting panic," he said.
The Weather Channel called the hurricane talk "bad meteorology."
Accuweather senior meteorologist and director of forecasting operations Ken Reeves called the NWS criticism "unfounded" and said there is nothing wrong in using language that gets people's attention when the situation calls for it.

Yes, and there's nothing wrong with, say, just reporting the facts and stop trying to sell the momentousness of the story so that you can boost ratings or get attention for yourself.

The Way Forward

This is a rare bird: a sensible, non-sneering journalism-of-the-future piece, and it includes a role for copy editors. Skip down a few paragraphs for the English translation. H/t Jay Rosen for finding it. I keep saying that there has to be a way to bring over some newspaper values--that is, standards of accuracy, elimination of bias as much as possible, quality writing, etc.--to new ways of doing journalism that doesn't piss on traditional journalists.

When Coverage Makes Things Worse

This isn't really all that surprising--people are angry at Congress because they're finding out something about how politics runs but it isn't necessarily an accurate picture.

updated: For a lot of reasons, I've been watching way too much cable news throughout the day and evening in recent years.  It's hard to say which is the worst at any given moment because the focus is entirely on the day to day grind of national politics, fed by people who have deep roots in the process and agendas they want to promote. And it doesn't help that the networks insist on covering everything political as if it were the Super Bowl.  Not everything is a game; not everything should be covered as if it were.
 I never would have thought, 10 years ago, that there was the chance that coverage might actually make things worse. But it has. Because it's crappy coverage.  Is it not reasonable to believe that endless appearances by people who, at worst, are clearly lying, and at best, giving a mighty spin to events, eventually turn people off, who walk away shouting a pox on all their houses?

Putting on the BBC shows just how bad our cable news shows are: on more than one occasion, I've found myself caught up listening to lengthy discussions about some matter in the UK that holds no interest to me personally, just because it's such a pleasant surprise to listen to informed people who are allowed to finish a sentence. 

It's hard to believe how tone deaf the US cable operations are. Have you seen the latest Chris Matthews' video where he brags about the joy he takes in catching people fibbing, especially if they've fibbed to others? As if Matthews' ego is what matters.  And while we're at it, I really wish MSNBC and Fox show hosts would stop attacking each other. Who cares?

As newspaper coverage diminishes with budget cutbacks, we are left with less and less actual news and are treated to things like watching George Stephanopoulos, who held out before going to Good Morning America so he could bring even more so-called political coverage to the show, demeaning himself by discussing whether young girls should wear high heels.

Choosing the Right Word

Why we need editors: This isn't a melee or a parents' fight, at least as described in this incomplete story. A disruption, certainly. Argument? Something. But I can't see a fight described here.

And it's a little odd that the game was disrupted by the home team but it is still declared the winner.

Parents' melee cancels Hills West-Bellport game

Quick Summary
Fight involving parents at Hills West-Bellport boys basketball game leads to game's cancellation.

A melee involving the parents of a Half Hollow Hills West player forced the cancellation of last night's Bellport at Hills West boys basketball game late in the third quarter, according to Colts athletic director Joe Pennacchio.

"A Bellport kid belted [Hills West player] Aaron McCree in the mouth and his [McCree's] parents ran onto the court," said Pennacchio, who attended the League IV contest.

According to the Hills West AD, the referees announced, "Game over at this point," which would mean a 52-33 victory for the unbeaten Colts. Pennacchio said Section XI executive director Ed Cinelli told him the game was official and the stats would count.

Neither Cinelli nor the two coaches returned calls last night.

Those Online Headlines

I've been complaining about the many factually challenged Huffington Post headlines for some time.  This week, Jon Stewart took up the issue of overheated language in heds.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Blogs Must Be Crazy
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis