OT: Apparently Irma's "graphics have been created to make it look like the ocean's having an exorcism"

When I see a lot of houses with a one or two foot water mark after the water has receded, and the owners tossing out carpeting and a few feet of drywall to dry out the house and fix it up, I understand that is not a "destroyed" house. DUH.

Oh, wait - I ALREADY said that. Double DUH!

I am sure these numbers will change, and are subject to interpretation, but this sure is different that reports I heard on the news that 100,000 homes were destroyed. And, replying to an earlier comment, I cannot dispute that stupidity and grandstanding is more likely the culprit than some big conspiracy.

"It will be a while before we know just how badly Harvey affected Houston and Texas but the latest numbers show a dire situation.

Almost 800 homes were completely destroyed in Harris County and over

Taxed and Spent wrote on 9/10/2017 11:13 AM:

I'm not disputing one set of numbers or the other. I don't understand your point. You seem to be saying the news reports of damage are exaggerated and support this with other news reports with different numbers. They are both news reports. Which is wrong?

I would think that by now anyone with half a brain would realize *all* news reports need to be taken with a grain of salt and verified. News reporting is not a science paper. They make mistakes or even alter the words used for dramatic effect. News is entertainment whether you want to believe it or not. Sometimes they try too hard to entertain and are not accurate in the news reporting. However, as you yourself have said, no conspiracy. No Machiavellian attempt to convince people AGW is real. They are just looking for eyes on the screen.

Well, my point is this: " *all* news reports need to be taken with a grain of salt and verified. News reporting is not a science paper. They make mistakes or even alter the words used for dramatic effect. News is entertainment whether you want to believe it or not. Sometimes they try too hard to entertain and are not accurate in the news reporting. . . . They are just looking for eyes on the screen."

Well said!

Damn! Is it a cold day in hell? Must be... I am in agreement with Rickman ;-)

"eyes on the screen"... make sure the story is absurd enough to guarantee that. ...Jim Thompson

While I agree, it is worth noting some of the constraints that shape the stories and the tenor of the reporting:

- commercial outfits (Fox/CNN/Limburger/Channel5/etc) have to make money or they are out of a job => whatever crap/lies keeps the unwashed masses' eyeballs pointing at them

- propaganda outfits (RussiaToday/RadioFreeEurope/etc) have to convince & swing their audience or they are out of a job => whatever lies they can get away with

- non-commercial outfits (PBS/BBC/etc) have to follow their mandate, which is usually along the lines of entertain, inform, educate => do the best to tell the truth

Hee hee don't tell Cursitor Doom that RT is propaganda.

He's promised to put me on his kill file list (yet again), so he'll be safe and sound inside his echo chamber.

Killfiles used in that way remind me of Zaphod Beeblebrox's sunglasses, which automatically turned black whenever he was in danger - thus saving him the inconvenience of panic.

The killfile threat is no longer fun once it's executed. It's analogous to this meme:

ote:

tamper

images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the politicall y extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

nition

the

suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warming is in any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples that don 't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understanding of wh at the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding something he c an diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have a ny kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learnin g enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he s eems to have done that.

and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast says it's st ronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the stronge st. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not famili ar with.

twork

t Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any real significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of lif e regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain an ything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd sizes, on th e other hand, is of obvious political importance.

in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. Bu t since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a house that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be completely torn down and rebuilt.

then

quate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than makes it to air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits where the reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these hous es were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the viewe r's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

rial

ion".

d "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may not be in good shape.

se may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

istinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aerial vie w.

e.

And you can judge that from an aerial photograph.

Maybe you can, but I cannot. I saw it on a news broadcast.

Nonsense. "Non-commercial" outfits have their bosses, complete with agendas, too.

Tom Gardner wrote on 9/10/2017 3:24 PM:

Don't ever think non-commercial outfits report the news with zero bias. I listen to NPR a lot and can spot much of their bias. So I know it exists. They are indeed very liberal.

no kidding. The few times I have listened it seemed they were having a debate between two liberal fanatics who agreed with each other. How often in a debate do you hear a response that starts off with "well, that's exactly right . . ."?

Quite often, but you have left out the "but".

te:

er

a tamper

h images? And I'm not talking about anyone from either end of the politica lly extreme; I think most do not identify with them.

r radar images for some ulterior motive is laughable and paranoid.

finition

in the

at suggests that the current orthodoxy on anthropogenic global warming is i n any way suspect. He's been through the statistics to find examples that d on't tie up with current news reporting (according to his understanding of what the reporters are saying, which is biased towards finding something he can diagree with). He an ex-TV weather front man, and doesn't seem to have any kind of academic qualification - which wouldn't have stopped him learn ing enough to have useful opinions if he'd gone to the trouble, not that he seems to have done that.

ch and the LA Times says it's the 2nd strongest, The Daily Beast says it's stronger than all others in 2017, and The Independent says one of the stron gest. The link you reference refers to IFL Science, a website I'm not fami liar with.

network

est Atlantic hurricane ever is noteworthy. It's not like this is of any re al significance; it's going to cause great property loss and some loss of l ife regardless. And it's not like either political party is going to gain anything significant weather it is or isn't. Exaggerating crowd sizes, on the other hand, is of obvious political importance.

t in the article (minus the comments), and not finding it in this thread. But since you asked, this seems quite subjective to me. For example, a hou se that's damaged could just as well be destroyed if it has to be completel y torn down and rebuilt.

, then

ark

dequate explanation. Reporters tend to record more material than makes it t o air, and editors have been known to take out the explanatory bits where t he reporter might have said that while those house were destroyed, these ho uses were merely damaged. Explanation is vital, but it doesn't hold the vie wer's attention like the image of a well-trashed house

aerial

ction".

ked "destroyed" as opposed to "damaged"?

ue down to the foundations and start over. What may still be standing may n ot be in good shape.

ouse may look trashed and still be easily repairable?

distinguish between "damaged" houses and "destroyed" houses in an aerial v iew.

are.

What you wrote (11 hours ago) which struck me as odd was

"They said some island had some high % destruction, then showed an aerial view where there was a lot of damage, but not all that was "destruction"."

I'm still wondering how you could deduce that from an aerial view you saw o n a news broadcast. I can appreciate that you don't like the way the media sensationalises the news, but spectacularly intense hurricanes do do sensat ional amounts of damage.

no buts involved.

yes, so all they have to do is report accurately.

None that you noticed.