The difference in coverage is AMAZING

I guess when the reporters don’t have to go out and actually travel into the hinterlands, but can instead just drive a few hours on roads in good repair, to places where the biggest issue is lack of power and maybe running water they will actually bother to cover the storm damage.

One the one hand we have unprecedented damage from Helene in the hills of North Carolina and Tennessee, and on the other hand we have what is, effectively, “normal” post hurricane damage in Florida from Milton….But one gets covered well and one doesn’t.

Is it laziness? Or is it something else?

2 thoughts on “The difference in coverage is AMAZING

  1. they were hoping for more destruction in fla., more viewers there. and its flat, near hotels with booze, all kinds of better.

  2. Think of the Vietnam coverage… Easy to post from Saigon after getting the 4 o’clock follies brief vs. trudging out to the hinterlands and possibly getting your butt shot off.

Comments are closed.