Why isn't the aftermath of Helene bigger news?

[Anonymous]

[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.

Because it rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat for those hurricane prone areas. The government will spend billions to rebuild and then in five years another storm will come through and do blow it away again.

Some of the worst damage isn't in FL, but instead western NC and Eastern Tennessee. Not exactly areas I would consider "hurricane prone".

They are, however, in Appalachia, which tends to be ignored for various reasons, and has been for decades or longer. I've seen lots of news coverage, but I have family and friends in the affected areas, so I'm actively looking for it.

And Asheville isn't exactly a hotbed of MAGA support, for those that assume this is a red state problem.

[Anonymous]

I just opened up my NYT app and coverage of Helene is at the very top and takes up the entire top section.

[Anonymous]

I’m reading tons of coverage.

[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.

Dear OP, I just watched PBS weekend and the second top story (following the situation in Lebanon) was Helene. In fact they had 2 stories about it. So here you go - enjoy!

[Anonymous]

And Biden spent the weekend relaxing in Rehoboth. YOLO, y’all.

[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.

What on earth is wrong with you?

WaPo top of the page:

Scores are fleeing North Carolina’s flooded towns after Hurricane Helene, which killed at least 87 in six states

[Anonymous]

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

You isn't understand how this is all Kamala Harris's fault?

This hurricane was probably caused by that fly she sent!

[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.

Huh. So, reputable news outlets aren't running with rumors?

So strange.

[Anonymous]

Fatigue.....it's always some tragedy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Re: Fox News - that's just BS. It's the very first story when you click on their website, captioned "Unprecedented Tragedy."

https://www.foxnews.com/?msockid=2932ca7c507d66ae3b59c5a751806746

[Anonymous]

These people wiped out by this flooding and landslides probably all voted for people who made environmental policy decisions that created storms like this in the first place. I have absolutely zero sympathy for their plight that they brought upon themselves. Anything that results in fewer trump votes in November is reason for joy.

[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.

Because it rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat for those hurricane prone areas. The government will spend billions to rebuild and then in five years another storm will come through and do blow it away again.

This is what I don't understand. I don't feel this way about western NC, Tennessee, or Georgia - but the areas of Florida that are CONSTANTLY wiped out by hurricanes. Why are they always rebuilt, only to be washed away again and again? It's the very definition of insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These people wiped out by this flooding and landslides probably all voted for people who made environmental policy decisions that created storms like this in the first place. I have absolutely zero sympathy for their plight that they brought upon themselves. Anything that results in fewer trump votes in November is reason for joy.

You are a hideous monster.

If Trump wins the election you will deserve all the suffering it brings to you, since "probably all voted for" it.

[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.

+1

I remember the news coverage of Hurricane Katrina which was much more robust