As I proclaimed a couple of weeks back when I offered my thoughts on saturation coverage of the Queen’s death and the Royal family, when it comes to news coverage, we give the audience what the audience wants, especially during weather events. So, when a major storm hits, like Hurricane Ian, the news goes into overdrive and rightly so.
Again, I declare…it’s what they want and we must deliver.
And like it is with most products, the consumers want it bigger, better and brighter.
Casinos must be swankier. Cruise ships must be fancier and more luxurious. Buffets must have fresher shrimp and tender roast beef. So, our storm coverage better beat the band!
And that coverage must go beyond the meteorologist’s maps and the rainfall indicators.
Of course, we expect it to be comprehensive and lengthy on the local side. Afterall, is there nothing more tantalizing than watching our favorite well-dressed reporters getting drenched outside a Walmart or on a bridge overpass?
Nationally, as well, the audience wants to know what’s happening where they’re not; show us what people who could be us are going through.
News crews do amazing things in covering storms and natural occurrences. Just thinking about the effort and patience it takes to set up a shot, gather natural sound in real time and present it in a coherent fashion should make those accomplishing it swell with pride.
Braving the wind gusts and the pounding rain, becoming virtually unrecognizable or discernible to a viewer or listener, that seems to be the key to success with the audience. And, no lie, it is.
Here’s the thing about hurricanes though: we know they’re coming. They give us advance warning and that, like with other major events, helps us plan and strategize. Where will the best shots be? Let’s identify the most vulnerable areas and the people in the know. We can make the best of plans.
Unfortunately, storms don’t always cooperate so we remain flexible and go where things take us. An earthquake, not so much.
I was new in Seattle back in the 90’s and an earthquake hit while the show I was producing was live on the air. The quake-experienced host went right under the desk and continued the broadcast while the technical director and I headed for mutual door jambs.
That was an experience for a New Yorker unaccustomed to trembling earth.
The interesting part was watching the team figure out where to send reporters and what the best locations would be. That’s when a practiced game plan really makes a difference.
Afterwards, I complained intensely to the locals about the experience, noting earthquakes were among several things when I moved out west that were not mentioned in the brochure.
There’s an aftermath of element collection to be handled. The stories of heroism, who was trapped where and images/evidence of the damage. Finding that stuff is not always easy and it does take an enthusiast journalist to land the great coverage.
Massive snow storms on the other hand, offer almost theme-like production values. The shoveling of sidewalks, the stalled traffic and buried cars and of course the kids sledding and throwing snowballs.
Gotta love winter storm coverage.
But back to the rain…As a cop, I worked during and after Hurricane Andrew in South Florida, probably one of the worst storms in recent history. There were, and are, great tales of award-winning coverage, terrific broadcast events and unmatched weather information provided by the best meteorologist out there, at least in my opinion.
Watching the news crews out there even back then, I remember thinking I felt safer as a cop than I ever would going out and covering a hurricane for the news. A few years later, my thoughts have shifted slightly but it’s still close.
The long-argued discussion about whether we put our staff in unnecessarily dangerous situations during storm coverage is a valid one, I think. But I do not believe that anyone is looking to put reporters needlessly in harm’s way. As a collective however, news managers and producers do want to put the reporters and the cameras in the most interesting situations and locations.
There is a difference there.
Do I think changes could be made? Improvements, perhaps? Yes, without question. Never, in any scenario, would I advocate for not doing the job. The we are out here so you don’t have to be philosophy still stands and it stands tall.
No journalist should ever bow to the question of “is this necessary?”. It is and likely always will be. First and foremost, news is still providing information services to the audience and there is a large body out there that wants and needs that information served to them.
Those we serve also want to hear the sounds, see the pictures and watch the video whether it’s live or recorded. The more enticing or luring the element the better and that takes effort.
Again, this is not advocacy for putting people in bad situations but we can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
Bill Zito has devoted most of his work efforts to broadcast news since 1999. He made the career switch after serving a dozen years as a police officer on both coasts. Splitting the time between Radio and TV, he’s worked for ABC News and Fox News, News 12 New York , The Weather Channel and KIRO and KOMO in Seattle. He writes, edits and anchors for Audacy’s WTIC-AM in Hartford and lives in New England. You can find him on Twitter @BillZitoNEWS.
