All three news organizations highlighted the fact that this storm could be an historic one. Obviously, to those in the United States would receive most of their news from US sources, so the message may be stressed more than in that of a foreign news article. The Sky News article was a bit scarce and lacked enough detail to fully inform its audience. Both Fox News and CNN's articles had convincing information and in addition to that, a few personal recollections from victims and survivors. This creates much more of a "real" experience and even makes it more personal. I trust US news covers much more than that of Great Britain or anywhere else around the world, unless it's coming from the Caribbean itself. It comes down to contact with the story being covered as well. The United States, which is already being hit by this storm, is going to be affected directly where as the rest of the world is not. Therefore, I find American sources and news coverage more credible. I have more of an understanding from the news of the potential of this storm, and I and my community are taking the proper precautions in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy. Friday, October 26, 2012
Hurricane Sandy
Natural disasters, as devastating as they may turn out, are remarkable occurrences. One just has to sit back in awe of nature and the power it possesses. As much as we'd like to think we can, humans can't control certain events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, avalanches, etc. That is out of our hands. The only thing we can do is prepare for such disasters and know how to be as safe as possible in the event that we are caught in one. It is good to be aware of the situation at hand and never underestimate what could happen. Technology is very useful in tracking potential patterns for hurricanes, for example, and with that, the government can take proper precautions necessary to warn citizens and advise the best possible ways to get through them safely. Currently, Hurricane Sandy is reeking havoc across the Caribbean, causing much damage in Cuba, Haiti, the Bahamas and Jamaica. It is now en route to hit much of the east coast of the United States in the upcoming week. The wind shield is increasing in size to the already prominent storm. Cold fronts coming from the west are adding to and energizing Hurricane Sandy as well. This is not a storm to be taking lightly. Both CNN and FoxNews seemed to focused on the potential the storm has still and the threat it still poses to much of he east coast. There were summaries of the casualties suffered in the areas already hit. So far, there have been 40 deaths according to Fox News and CNN. According to Sky News, which is a news organization in the United Kingdom, stated that there have been 39 recorded deaths. Although it's only one off, I feel as if they don't have as much of an immediate supply of accurate information as news organizations in the United States might have.
All three news organizations highlighted the fact that this storm could be an historic one. Obviously, to those in the United States would receive most of their news from US sources, so the message may be stressed more than in that of a foreign news article. The Sky News article was a bit scarce and lacked enough detail to fully inform its audience. Both Fox News and CNN's articles had convincing information and in addition to that, a few personal recollections from victims and survivors. This creates much more of a "real" experience and even makes it more personal. I trust US news covers much more than that of Great Britain or anywhere else around the world, unless it's coming from the Caribbean itself. It comes down to contact with the story being covered as well. The United States, which is already being hit by this storm, is going to be affected directly where as the rest of the world is not. Therefore, I find American sources and news coverage more credible. I have more of an understanding from the news of the potential of this storm, and I and my community are taking the proper precautions in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy.
All three news organizations highlighted the fact that this storm could be an historic one. Obviously, to those in the United States would receive most of their news from US sources, so the message may be stressed more than in that of a foreign news article. The Sky News article was a bit scarce and lacked enough detail to fully inform its audience. Both Fox News and CNN's articles had convincing information and in addition to that, a few personal recollections from victims and survivors. This creates much more of a "real" experience and even makes it more personal. I trust US news covers much more than that of Great Britain or anywhere else around the world, unless it's coming from the Caribbean itself. It comes down to contact with the story being covered as well. The United States, which is already being hit by this storm, is going to be affected directly where as the rest of the world is not. Therefore, I find American sources and news coverage more credible. I have more of an understanding from the news of the potential of this storm, and I and my community are taking the proper precautions in anticipation of Hurricane Sandy. 
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I disagree that the difference in recorded deaths reported by Fox News and Sky News (the UK source) is significant or denotes inaccuracy abroad. I feel as if you’re acting under the assumption that the United States sources are correct, when it may be the foreign source that is more specific! Maybe there really were 39 deaths at that point and the US sources were simply rounding up. Or a time delay between the two articles might be to blame. Not to offend that person or their loved ones, because I certainly hope the deceased rests in peace, but leaving off one death isn’t something to write off a news source about.
ReplyDeleteIn general, however, I do agree that American sources go into significantly greater detail about Hurricane Sandy than do foreign news outlets. For example, ABC news is offering not just text coverage of approaching weather, but also storm trackers, video feeds, and constantly updated data. A UK newspaper titled “the Independent” briefly discusses the American weather to come, but doesn’t offer much else. They acknowledge that a storm is brewing, but don’t pay much attention to detail. I find this to be absolutely understandable. The weather system isn’t going to affect the UK specifically so detailed reports aren’t necessary. Or at least aren’t necessary yet. I’m confident that if Hurricane Sandy incurs more damage than anticipated, UK news sources would cover the aftermath in more detail.
Overall, reports of significant weather patterns, like Hurricane Sandy, are more detailed and extensive in the regions that are going to be directly affected. Foreign news does mention that a hurricane is going to occur, but don’t offer such specific information. I find this to be understandable.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/hurricane-sandy-east-coast-braces-superstorm/story?id=17578128#.UI1bghhVhr0
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hurricane-sandys-trail-of-destruction-8229245.html
I agree that United States news sources are very reliable when it comes to hurricanes and storms. The reason I believe they are reliable is because they follow the storm from the start and are periodically filling the public about what is going on with the storm. Updates about wind speeds, rain, and damage is always hands on and a reporter is almost always on the scene. I see the contrast between United States news sources and foreign news sources but when it comes to hurricane Sandy it is irrelevant to compare. Obviously the United States is being directly affected and hit by the storm, thus creating hands on data and observations that are more accurate and foreign news sources.
ReplyDeleteHurricane Sandy is the headline of every US news source website. Not only is it the headline but there are hourly stories that come out on the progress of the storm. Such as CNN who releases new headlines about the hurricane pretty much on an hourly bases. They have been releasing recently about Obama declaring state of emergencies like his last one which was Massachusetts.http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/28/sandy-bringing-life-threatening-storm-surge/?hpt=hp_t1
I think it is possible that the UK would not have as accurate information on hurricanes in the US because it is not directly affecting them, but I do not see it as a journalistic issue. They have similar resources to gather data on weather and its impact. The Guardian, a UK news site, has accurate up to date information from the US including tweets about state of emergency being declared in some states and not others. I actually learned more information from this site and its live blog coverage than most US sites I have visited.
ReplyDeleteHurricane Sandy is starting to really make a name for it. When I say this I mean that when I had first heard about the hurricane coming to the Caribbean and eventually hit the east coast of the United States, I did not think that this hurricane was going to be as serious and, evidentially, as deadly. Hurricane Sandy has now affected my personal life. It has made my ability to get back to school from Long Island impossible until at least Wednesday of next week. This puts a real inconvenience on my studies and athletics. As you can see, in this article, winds are starting to pick up in New York and New Jersey reaching around 55 MPH. I guess you can say for taking Hurricane Sandy lightly, it really proved to me that it’s a real Class I hurricane.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.org/publicalerts/alert?aid=39c9120dd4cc908&hl=en&gl=US&source=web
It's not a fair judgement to rate the accuracy and thoroughness of a news journal based on one storm. And like you said, Sky News is a news organization in the United Kingdom, so obviously they're not going to be as interested in something going on in the United States as much as the United States would be. The fact that Sky News even covered the Sandy Hurricane when it has nothing to do with the UK is surprising to me. I went to http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/ to see if CNN posted anything that has to do with things completely unrelated to the United States. I found that every "world" article related back to the United States in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteI believe that although US new sources such as CNN and Fox News may be more detailed and cover more of a "personal" feel, it is unfair to say that news sources like Sky News would not be able to be as accurate and credible. With technological advances and the use of the internet, I believe that all news sources could potentially have all the same information about a given storm. Granted, US sources may go into more specifics about each storm, i.e. cities it will hit the hardest, times of arrival, average expected damage of certain areas, etc, UK (and other non-US sources) would still be able to learn and report top wind speeds and overall expected damage.
ReplyDeleteI believe to say that the local news sources will be more credible would be similar to saying that Japan's reports of their earthquake were more informative than ones produced by CNN and Fox News alike.
I agree that US news has more articles and more personal stories because the hurricane was "closer to home". It would be harder for an overseas country to get as many personal accounts based on their location, but as some other commenters said, I don't think this fact hinders the accuracy of the reports.
ReplyDeleteLike Lindsey argued, the 1 person difference could have been because of a time delay. Plus, there is a 5 hour time difference and they probably did not have someone covering a United States hurricane 24/7.
Similarly, while we on the east coast had live coverage on every news channel, I bet the west coast was not as concerned since they were not in the path of the hurricane. They did not need to know how fast the storm was traveling ever hour like we did. Nevertheless, I think the important information got through to other parts of the world.
An article from The Independent, a UK newspaper, gave a brief overview of the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy. I was pretty impressed that they summarized most places in the path of the hurricane. (It even mentions College Park!) Although it's not as detailed, it is still accurate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-story-of-hurricane-sandy-8278017.html?origin=internalSearch
While I do agree that differences between news sources can often be related to a bias, I do not think that is the case in this situation. The death toll in natural disasters of this proportion can vary based on unreported deaths and other factors. In Staten Island, where I am originally from, there are many unreported deaths. Due to this, the death toll keeps changing and therefore will vary throughout news sources as information gets released and circumstances changed. However, I can understand why the reader would trust the U.S. news source more because this event happened in the U.S. Also, the author did not provide the link for either article, so it is difficult to give a proper analysis on the differences between the UK and U.S. source. When googling UK news for Hurricane Sandy, there were many sources that thoroughly informed the reader on the effects of Hurricane Sandy, including a live telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9639244/Hurricane-Sandy-October-28-as-it-happened.html.
ReplyDelete