May 14, 2014

"@CBS11 ya'll freaking suck!! Yall made me miss The Big Bang Theory!! If I wanted to see the weather Ill put it on The Weather Channel!!"

And: "Fuck TV weather people. Local weather has ruined my DVR night. No Big Bang, no Parks and Rec. But I can watch an hour of weather maps!"

And: "@CBSDFW Stupid idiots don't show Big Bang Theory for weather !!  You people are beyond idiotic. Show The top show on TV !!"

From "Mocking Disaster Victims Makes You The Worst Kind of Person," via WaPo's "Anchor lashes out at viewers complaining about TV shows interrupted for tornado coverage."

A big point from the station's perspective seems seems to be: You can go to the network website and stream the show.

A big point from the complaining viewer's perspective seems to be: The show I like is a high-ratings show.

39 comments:

gerry said...

Thank heaven for First-World problems.

Is that a variation of "Check your privilege"? If it is, never mind.

SJ said...

This might be a place to remind viewers that broadcast networks operate under FCC regulations that require this kind of behavior.

When that regulation was written, broadcast TV/Radio were the best way to reach most of the population quickly.

They may still be the best way. And this may be a place where government regulation is a useful public good.

But I doubt that the guy complaining is aware of the number of lives saved by timely warnings of bad weather.

rhhardin said...

The news department likes to take over.

A thunderstorm is all it takes for the local radio to pre-empt Limbaugh.

This ruins the recording.

Why record? For starters I have all 75 shows that Mark Steyn has hosted, and a command that plays a random one to listen to, say when scything the lawn.

Rush himself isn't much worth the trouble these days.

SteveR said...

I lived in that area for many years and its more or less assumed that in tornado season, the stations will be on the weather once the first one is spotted until the last raindrop falls. Its more than ratings on a particular night.

Ann Althouse said...

"Rush himself isn't much worth the trouble these days."

Help me itemize what's wrong with the show these days:

1. Too many repetitions of the same generic rants about economics. (Big government turns people into slackers; he wants everybody to have an opportunity to achieve their dreams.)

2. Too much talk about his children's books (with callers giving their anecdotes about their kids liking the books).

3….

tim maguire said...

Used to piss me off when I lived in the Midwest that for weeks after a tornado, they would interrupt programming every time it got cloudy. It's overkill, I don't depend on network TV for my weather information, I depend on them to show what's on their schedule.

rhhardin said...

Rush's strength was self-deprecation, in the form of a larger-than-life persona.

When he goes into morality and values, the larger-than-life ends and so does the entertainment.

This used to last a week or so and then stop, but it doesn't seem to be stopping now.

He could do good economics if he understood economics. As it is he gives the right answer but the wrong reason, which is anti-entertainment.

Also his caller selection is really bad, but he's never been good with callers.

Mark Steyn is the guy to deal with callers, simultaneously taking them seriously and out-arguing them.

Rush has entertaining prankster instincts still, not giving them much play though.

grackle said...

I don't know if he is still doing it or not but years ago he used to throw in sly implications about the Clintons causing Vince Foster's death. Never anything direct, mind you - Limbaugh probably knows that if he made a direct accusation that he would most likely be sued for all he's worth by the Clintons. This, and other things turned me off so I turned him off and I stopped paying much attention to him around that time. I doubt if he actually believes the Clintons killed Foster.

richlb said...

Isn't this supposed to be fixed by High Def broadcasts? The local channels actually have several channels to broadcast on. Why can't they broadcast the tornado warnings on the main channel and still show the network programming on their secondary channel?

Mountain Maven said...

This is why the networks continue to shed viewers. No respect for the customers.

And Steyn is the Baddest

CWJ said...

My issue is not preemption, but rather the difficulty of getting accurate actionable local information.

Local news is a big deal for local stations. Its the major local content ad revenue generator for each station. So for better or worse, it is the dog, not the tail.

The temptation to hype weather threats appears just too great. I've lived through far too many storms of the century in Kansas City that have barely wet the ground once they arrived. I've changed far more plans due to predictions of dire weather than have actually been worth changing. I've also lived through two neighborhood(!) tornados, only one of which was accurately anticipated. A little circumspection regarding the actual likelihood of dire weather would functionally be more helpful to the viewership.

That said, I understand a fundamental problem faced by our local TV affiliates. Compared to say, a Milwaukee, or even a Chicago, Kansas City's viewing area is vast. I think it covers something like 50 counties in Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas. So the "local" weather is as likely to happen a hundred miles away from the metro as in the metro itself, and the local stations are just as obligated to inform those viewers as anyone else.

Ann Althouse said...

Steyn is great, especially if you enjoy a guy laughing at his own jokes until he has a coughing fit.

Ann Althouse said...

Speaking of coughing fit, how ill is Rush? I'm beginning to worry about his "cold" that's gone on for 6 weeks.

You can hear him wheezing.

Ann Althouse said...

The tornado warnings can easily be done as a banner at the bottom of the screen while the show plays.

I thought the anchors shown in the clip at WaPo were awfully sanctimonious and scolding. They want to break in and jabber and show the footage they have of what it looks like. That's far beyond the utilitarian warnings that we're supposed to feel like jerks for objecting to.

Ann Althouse said...

If they don't show the shows, people won't watch and won't be there to see the warnings.

I mean, I enjoy laughing at the people who need their darn shows, but why is the station even there? It's because people want their shows.

EDH said...

"Ya'll a bunch of Nazis, only you don't dress as sharp... not nearly as sharp, man."

I was wondering what Mondo Mabamba was up to these days. Evidently, he's still angry with "The Man" but a fan of The Big Bang Theory.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

The problem is too many people believing they can make a half sandwich.

Cedarford said...

It is a huge problem - seriously! Well-meaning government and activist groups (if interrupting a 1,000 shows saves just one life or leads to an Amber Alert tip - its worth it!!) want more and more "socially beneficial interruptions" to scheduled service.
People pay for TV channels because they want to watch things at scheduled times. They also pay for reliable service. Not for what they pay for to be wiped away for minutes and hours of weather hype or "important breaking news".
It is time to shift this public alerting function to cell phones which will alert a lot more people, faster. But it has to be done in a way that does not screw the reliability of cell phones that could be in an important conversation. A beep, a text message but no interruption in service to say a tornado cell is forming 100 miles away or NY issued a national Amber Alert..

sydney said...

They don't need to pre-empt the program. And really, when did tornado watches become warnings? When I was growing up a watch meant the conditions were right for a tornado and a warning meant head for the basement, one's a coming. Now a warning is used for ripe conditions. Sorry, but I can't spend my spring in the cellar.

Smilin' Jack said...

Stupid idiots don't show Big Bang Theory for weather !!  You people are beyond idiotic.

These days the epithet "stupid" has become so universally applicable that it has lost its power. You need to call it racist. Big Bang is a show by and for white people, so showing the warnings there has disparate impact, and implies black lives are worthless, and is tantamount to genocide. That's the way to play it.

lgv said...

The interruptions can be quite irritating. They are quite repetitive and stretch beyond what is necessary to convey information. You would be surprised how awful the weather coverage has become. They will switch to the reporter who is where the heaviest storm was 30 minutes ago, so he/she can say how it is now a just a sprinkle in Forney. Back to you, Ted.

mccullough said...

"Flood of complaints" is tacky writing.

Tank said...

Ann Althouse said...

"Rush himself isn't much worth the trouble these days."

Help me itemize what's wrong with the show these days:

1. Too many repetitions of the same generic rants about economics. (Big government turns people into slackers; he wants everybody to have an opportunity to achieve their dreams.)

2. Too much talk about his children's books (with callers giving their anecdotes about their kids liking the books).

3….

He stopped using the blender to dramatize abortion. Ah, those were the days. He had edge. Now, he lacks edge.

As to the BB Theory, can't you watch that for free the next day on your computer?

David said...

This is why I generally waste my time on the internet rather than by watching television.

mpeirce said...

> When I was growing up a watch meant the conditions were right for a tornado and a warning meant head for the basement, one's a coming.

When everything is an emergency, then nothing is.

I tried a weather alert radio. We get tornados here from time to time and I'd like to know about one before it arrives in my living room

But the darn thing went off all the time. Who knew how many flash floods happen! Of course I live on high ground and don't care. Sadly I had to turn off the darn thing completely.

People need to read Aesop...

rhhardin said...

Speak of the devil, the affiliate has gone to all weather warnings all the time.

There's a guy to recomment getting fresh batteries, and a guy telling how to test fire the emergency generator.

Light rain, maybe a half inch.

I went to streaming rushlimbaugh.com before this, using my weather warning warning.

If you see rain on the radar, switch off the radio and go online for audio.

Birches said...

The interruptions can be quite irritating. They are quite repetitive and stretch beyond what is necessary to convey information. You would be surprised how awful the weather coverage has become. They will switch to the reporter who is where the heaviest storm was 30 minutes ago, so he/she can say how it is now a just a sprinkle in Forney. Back to you, Ted.

Completely agree. Preemption is just ego stroking for many local anchors. They don't actually report anything useful, but boy do they have their "serious news" reporting face on.

Wade Calvert said...

I remember having to watch through the aftermath of Hurricane Ike in Houston 2008. The local networks carried 24 hour coverage for nearly 2 weeks after. After about day 3 of this, it was clear that not a single report/story they were showing was providing new or pertinent information aimed at helping out local folks. It was all self aggrandizement. People were furiously hammering them with hate mail. I was one of them.

Original Mike said...

KSFY anchor Nancy Naeve said: "You aren’t going to go on the air if it’s not important."

Problem is, that's often not true. TV stations display little ability to restrain themselves.

SJ said...

So, I assumed offhand that there was some sort of regulation (from FCC) about how broadcasters have to respond to weather alerts (from NOAA).

Is that the case?

Or is the perceived market driving the response of broadcast stations to weather emergencies?

Brian said...

Our (read: Memphis) area broadcasters are generally quite good about not preempting unnecessarily; they're usually not on unless there are hie-thee-to-the-shelter warnings that have to be conveyed.

One problem, though, is that people are getting used to being narrowcasted to, while a local TV station remains a true broadcaster sending a TV signal to everyone in a 100-mile radius. You go to weather.com you get warnings for your ZIP; you turn on WREG you get warnings from the Missouri bootheel to Tupelo and back again. That feels anachronistic to the viewer, but I suspect there's not a lot to be done about it from the TV guy's POV.

CWJ said...

I agree with the comments above complaining about weather hype. But please read the first paragraph of my comment above.

News at the network level is tail, not dog. News at the local level is dog, not tail. They can't help themselves. It doesn't excuse it. But it sure explains it.

Unknown said...

OTOH, my mom is glued to the TV whenever there is a fire, earthquake, tornado, anywhere. She's not alone.

Freeman Hunt said...

They don't need to pre-empt the program. And really, when did tornado watches become warnings? When I was growing up a watch meant the conditions were right for a tornado and a warning meant head for the basement, one's a coming. Now a warning is used for ripe conditions. Sorry, but I can't spend my spring in the cellar.

This! A thousand times, this!

Carol said...

I remember Rush circa 1991. I could hear him only on road trips to LA. He was absolutely outrageous, so un-PC, took only male callers. He's way too civilized now.

mrs.e said...

They don't need to pre-empt the program. And really, when did tornado watches become warnings? When I was growing up a watch meant the conditions were right for a tornado and a warning meant head for the basement, one's a coming. Now a warning is used for ripe conditions. Sorry, but I can't spend my spring in the cellar.

Because, when we were kids they used storm/tornado spotters. Today, we add Doppler radar that can detect large rotating updrafts that occurring inside supercells. A storm with a tornado observed by radar has certain distinguishing features (rotation patterns meeting specific criteria for size, strength, vertical depth and duration). While the existence of these conditions does not guarantee a tornado, it does strongly increase the probability of a tornado occurring. Hence, the hypersensitivity of “seeing” it on radar before the spotter sees it - I’m ok with that, but that’s just me.

Falacrine said...

Local news is trash. It seems to exist solely to feed the paranoid and congratulate itself on it's moral rectitude. I wouldn't watch it if the Deluge was happening.

Freeman Hunt said...

Mrs.e, they don't reserve warnings for that. We have warnings now when there's not even a storm in the area. They ran a tornado warning all day not long ago, and it didn't even rain. It's nuts. No one knows when to take shelter anymore.

Æthelflæd said...

I only listen to Rush if Steyn or Walter Williams is on. Rush used to amuse me but he bores me anymore.