greetings-
i was interested in hearing what you all think about the media coverage of fires and incidents in your area- specificly, how well or poorly both airborne and ground reporters do at describing (live) what firefighters or paramedics are ACTUALLY doing to suppress a blaze or attend to victums at an incident. when you watch live coverage of an incident in your metro area, are you usually rolling your eyes in disgust as a helicopter reporter describes what they think they are seeing, or are you impressed with the knowledge some reporters can demonstrate?
in my area (chicago), it can go both ways- though the reporters usually disappoint. speculation is common, as in the case of reporting "firefighters are getting a handle on it" because there is less smoke than during the last report.
just a simple example, perhaps you all have thoughts about it?
thanks
i was interested in hearing what you all think about the media coverage of fires and incidents in your area- specificly, how well or poorly both airborne and ground reporters do at describing (live) what firefighters or paramedics are ACTUALLY doing to suppress a blaze or attend to victums at an incident. when you watch live coverage of an incident in your metro area, are you usually rolling your eyes in disgust as a helicopter reporter describes what they think they are seeing, or are you impressed with the knowledge some reporters can demonstrate?
in my area (chicago), it can go both ways- though the reporters usually disappoint. speculation is common, as in the case of reporting "firefighters are getting a handle on it" because there is less smoke than during the last report.
just a simple example, perhaps you all have thoughts about it?
thanks
Comment