Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed in the following article belong solely to the author and do not reflect or represent Newsner.
Every year, when hurricane season rolls around and the first storm takes aim at the United States many of us are left wondering, do reporters really need to risk their lives and go live from the center of a hurricane?
While most argue no, I say the tradition needs to continue. But with at least one adjustment.
As residents are urged to evacuate their homes and businesses ahead of an impending storm, reporters flock to the area, setting up their lights and cameras, ready to go live at a moment’s notice.
But why do they race towards the storm when everyone else is told to seek shelter? Surely, everyone knows the damage a hurricane can cause. Do we really need to see a reporter risk their life as they stand in the middle of a dangerous storm telling us how much it’s rained in the past hour?
The short answer is yes.
Having a reporter stationed outside in the middle of a raging hurricane provides those who evacuated to a shelter or another town a look at what their neighborhood is experiencing.
It also provides real-time information for those who may still be in the path of the storm. Reporters are able to give people both near and far a glimpse at the immediate damage caused by the wind, rain, and storm surge.
It could be argued that over the past decade and a half, citizens have been able to do the same thing with their cell phones and access to social media. However, as seen during recent storms, not only is the risk of spreading misinformation and disinformation high, but the average American is arguably more in danger of harm than a seasoned reporter.
Amy Freeze, a meteorologist and anchor with Fox Weather, said, “You can’t just guess at it. There is an inherent risk.”
According to the Washington Post, Freeze was on a barrier island in Virginia when Hurricane Isabel struck in 2003. During her reporting she noticed the storm surge creeping up from the bayside of the island, signaling a much stronger surge from the oceanside in the near future.
Luckily, Freeze and her crew were able to get out of the way, but a less experienced person may have ignored the storm surge resulting in a major disaster.
Now here’s where I think things should change. Rather than have the Anderson Coopers and David Muirs covering hurricanes, I believe we need to stick with the local and national meteorologists in the field.
Anderson Cooper, who was struck by debris live on air while covering Hurricane Milton, does not need to be in the middle of the storm, and neither does David Muir or Lester Holt. Let them man the anchor desk, while those who study the weather and/or live in the area report live from the affected areas.
They’re the ones who are best suited to deliver the news without sensationalizing the storm because after all, we just want the facts. Plus, they’re more likely to know when to seek shelter and how to stay safe if conditions become too intense.
While the debate over whether reporters should do live shots during a hurricane continues, one thing is clear, armchair meteorologists do not need to be going out in the middle of a hurricane to report on the storm. Leave that up to the professionals.
Let’s hear your thoughts about journalists reporting from the middle of a hurricane. Is it necessary or are they just putting themselves in harm’s way? Leave us a comment!
READ MORE:
- Tampa’s ‘Lieutenant Dan’ survives Hurricane Milton on 20-ft boat
- Twin babies, who died alongside their mom, believed to be youngest Hurricane Helene victims