Cypress posted that:
https://canetalk.com/2015/08/1440042884_1440024714.shtml
As some other people had commented before things got removed, PNJ got played. I don't know what they do to determine what should or should not be posted and how things are vetted, but I hope they make changes. There were about forty comments on the Facebook post, all negative, including meteorologists on Facebook and Twitter complaining about how ridiculous the article was. PNJ was responding to the comments on Facebook in a way that demonstrated how confused they actually were. (or at least the person who was posting on Facebook for them.) They made the right decision in removing it. Hopefully it doesn't get printed. That would be really terrible.
My original comment on the article (Later I also got into the military part and the coincidental GFS run, but I didn't save that part):
In regards to this article:
This article is one of the most ridiculous pieces I have ever had the displeasure of reading. The posting of this article is without a doubt, irresponsible and reckless to your readers.
As a news organization you must understand, or at least I hope you can now, the absurdity of reporting on any entity that has people making such claims. "90-plus percent accuracy is required. NSC promises 95-percent accuracy." Do you not understand the repercussions of posting such outrageous things?
You quote a person there as saying. "We're not even concerned". "They get everybody worked up. Why do they do that? The media does it because any time there's severe weather ratings go up, and if the ratings go up, they charge more for commercials. It's good for business. It's unfortunate because people who are watching it don't know any better."
I find it utterly hilarious in a way, though exceptionally sad and misleading in reality, that on one hand you have someone saying how unfortunate it is that people don't know any better in regards to one thing, but on the other hand you publish this article, which gives credence to a ridiculous premise. You can't promise 95% accuracy. If you have that kind of accuracy you are either a) creating/controlling the weather or b) have a time machine. If you did not check either a, b, or both, then we have a problem. If you did check one of those, then we really, really have a problem.
I fear what your readers might think if they read this article and this person is right about this Danny in this instance. Will this then become one of their go to sources?
You don't have anything in the article about always visiting the National Hurricane Center (http://hurricanes.gov/) for official information. At the very least, if you want to touch on something like this, that MUST be a requirement. Also, over the few years this entity has been around have you judged their forecasts? Are they 90 to 95% accurate? Before publishing something so important, where lives are at stake, take the time to do some responsible reporting or don't do it at all.
Upon visiting the site of this entity I see a NOAA logo displayed on every page of their site. That should be your first clue, trying too hard to impress. In reality, one of the focuses of this place is trying to connect people with contractors. I can't wait to see what is in store from the other entities the people behind this place created earlier this year, the "National Weather Forensics Center, LLC" and "Storm Damage Center, LLC". I do give them credit for apt use of the most official sounding names. And yes, that would be sarcasm.
Please remove the article and print a retraction. |