Why isn't the aftermath of Helene bigger news?

[Anonymous]

It feels like this huge disaster is getting ignored. Entire communities have been destroyed. Some won't have water for a week. I see that WaPo.and NY Times are reporting on it but it's below the Middle East and the election and the focus on the deaths which present it as isolated issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this huge disaster is getting ignored. Entire communities have been destroyed. Some won't have water for a week. I see that WaPo.and NY Times are reporting on it but it's below the Middle East and the election and the focus on the deaths which present it as isolated issues.

It doesn’t get clicks. Better to spin everyone up on anti-semitism and Gaza than actually report.

It is a huge disaster. And we likely won’t understand the full scope for another week or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this huge disaster is getting ignored. Entire communities have been destroyed. Some won't have water for a week. I see that WaPo.and NY Times are reporting on it but it's below the Middle East and the election and the focus on the deaths which present it as isolated issues.

It doesn’t get clicks. Better to spin everyone up on anti-semitism and Gaza than actually report.

It is a huge disaster. And we likely won’t understand the full scope for another week or two.

There is no electricity, cell or sewer service in the hardest-hit areas. Want to think through how the logistics of reporting from there should work?

[Anonymous]

Because it impacted red states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this huge disaster is getting ignored. Entire communities have been destroyed. Some won't have water for a week. I see that WaPo.and NY Times are reporting on it but it's below the Middle East and the election and the focus on the deaths which present it as isolated issues.

It doesn’t get clicks. Better to spin everyone up on anti-semitism and Gaza than actually report.

It is a huge disaster. And we likely won’t understand the full scope for another week or two.

There is no electricity, cell or sewer service in the hardest-hit areas. Want to think through how the logistics of reporting from there should work?

The above is reason number 1 why there’s not fuller reporting; it’s going to be a minute before we know the extent.

The other reasons are completely unsexy: this is the result of decades of disinvestment in infrastructure and decades of ignoring global warming. This is exactly what people have been warning about and I think many people across multiple states have felt secure from the worst ravages of global warming’s effects, but this is how it’s going to be: comparatively random events and devastating. Biden has put in the infrastructure work, but that’s just the beginning.

All of the reporting on this should feature the compounding effect of global warming on the strength of this hurricane.

[Anonymous]

It’s all over my Apple News feed. I’m unclear why you think it’s not being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this huge disaster is getting ignored. Entire communities have been destroyed. Some won't have water for a week. I see that WaPo.and NY Times are reporting on it but it's below the Middle East and the election and the focus on the deaths which present it as isolated issues.

It doesn’t get clicks. Better to spin everyone up on anti-semitism and Gaza than actually report.

It is a huge disaster. And we likely won’t understand the full scope for another week or two.

There is no electricity, cell or sewer service in the hardest-hit areas. Want to think through how the logistics of reporting from there should work?

Journalists report from war zones. With more dire constraints.

The aftermath of a flood isn’t as sexy as a war zone. Though the suffering is just as real. But it’s expensive to do that kind of reporting. Unfortunately the media prefers to sit at a table shouting at each other or reviewing social media for a “story.”

It’s not particularly nefarious. It’s just not economically worth it.

[Anonymous]

I reject the entire premise of the thread. It’s being covered extensively.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Another guess.

Because we get less and less of our news from MSM and if it is not being covered on social media sites there are a lot of people not seeing it. If cell service is down and a lack of power there are fewer non traditional reporters that are reporting on it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another guess.

Because we get less and less of our news from MSM and if it is not being covered on social media sites there are a lot of people not seeing it. If cell service is down and a lack of power there are fewer non traditional reporters that are reporting on it?

OP here. My issue is actually that social media seems much more informative about the scope of what is happening. It feels like WaPo and NY Times aren't fully conveying how catastrophic this is.

[Anonymous]

For example, today WaPo has an article with the headline and subheader: "True toll unclear in flooded North Carolina towns, scores try to get in touch with loved ones: Days after Helene swept through, cell signal and Internet coverage remain a challenge" which makes it sound like the concern is primarily around communications. You have to read through the article to learn that entire neighborhoods in the Asheville region have been destroyed. They have a lot of information but the way it is presented in the app and headline does not do justice to the devastation.

On X I can see the following:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another guess.

Because we get less and less of our news from MSM and if it is not being covered on social media sites there are a lot of people not seeing it. If cell service is down and a lack of power there are fewer non traditional reporters that are reporting on it?

OP here. My issue is actually that social media seems much more informative about the scope of what is happening. It feels like WaPo and NY Times aren't fully conveying how catastrophic this is.

CNN, NBC, and USA Today, plus tons of local news outlets are all over my Apple News Feed about this. Why are you just obsessing about NYT and WP (who have also covered it but not to your satisfaction?) There is only so much new news to report. Catastrophic flooding, many people stranded, roads washed out, first responders can’t reach them, power out. It’s all been reported already - what do you want them to report?????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another guess.

Because we get less and less of our news from MSM and if it is not being covered on social media sites there are a lot of people not seeing it. If cell service is down and a lack of power there are fewer non traditional reporters that are reporting on it?

OP here. My issue is actually that social media seems much more informative about the scope of what is happening. It feels like WaPo and NY Times aren't fully conveying how catastrophic this is.

CNN, NBC, and USA Today, plus tons of local news outlets are all over my Apple News Feed about this. Why are you just obsessing about NYT and WP (who have also covered it but not to your satisfaction?) There is only so much new news to report. Catastrophic flooding, many people stranded, roads washed out, first responders can’t reach them, power out. It’s all been reported already - what do you want them to report?????

Ugh I've described my concerns. I don't watch TV news. Agree to disagree. Not going to keep repeating what I've already described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It feels like this huge disaster is getting ignored. Entire communities have been destroyed. Some won't have water for a week. I see that WaPo.and NY Times are reporting on it but it's below the Middle East and the election and the focus on the deaths which present it as isolated issues.

It doesn’t get clicks. Better to spin everyone up on anti-semitism and Gaza than actually report.

It is a huge disaster. And we likely won’t understand the full scope for another week or two.

There is no electricity, cell or sewer service in the hardest-hit areas. Want to think through how the logistics of reporting from there should work?

The above is reason number 1 why there’s not fuller reporting; it’s going to be a minute before we know the extent.

The other reasons are completely unsexy: this is the result of decades of disinvestment in infrastructure and decades of ignoring global warming. This is exactly what people have been warning about and I think many people across multiple states have felt secure from the worst ravages of global warming’s effects, but this is how it’s going to be: comparatively random events and devastating. Biden has put in the infrastructure work, but that’s just the beginning.

All of the reporting on this should feature the compounding effect of global warming on the strength of this hurricane.

Why is every disaster these days automatically attributed to "climate change". FWIW, a similar flood occured in the same areas in 1916. Was that caused by "climate change" too?