4 ms·

Not that I think the central conclusion is wrong, but after skimming the article it's very odd that relative number of affected people is not brought up ('popul

Not that I think the central conclusion is wrong, but after skimming the article it's very odd that relative number of affected people is not brought up ('population' isn't even mentioned in the piece). The Houston metro has twice the population of Puerto Rico. I don't know an easy way to estimate those effected in Florida, and probably the sum total of human suffering is greater in Puerto Rico thanks to the island's vulnerability, the state of infrastructure, and the strength of the storm. Obviously there's no real way to measure these up but it seems an obvious line of questioning in trying to explain the disparity.

wccrawford 9y ago
I live in Florida. Millions were affected here. However, at no point was the entire state out of power, and even if it had been, we have neighboring states that we can travel to relatively easily. In fact, many of us did that to avoid the storm altogether, and only came back when it was gone. Most of us that stayed weren't out of power for more than a week... In fact, most were only out for a few days. Most people in Puerto Rico didn't have that option, and they couldn't travel anyone via land to somewhere with power. In short, Puerto Rico is much, much worse.
StudentStuff 9y ago
10% of Houston was affected by flooding. Basically all my friends in PR were affected by this hurricane, despite them being sprinkled about the island. One still has servers that are underwater from said storm, helped him stand up replacements a few days back for those. More people were affected in PR by this hurricane than those affected in Houston.
- ghostly_s 9y ago
  > More people were affected in PR by this hurricane than those affected in Houston. Thanks for this added context. I haven't really seen this discussed in the media coverage, which is not terribly surprising, but I guess I expected a stats-heavy outfit like 538 to touch on this aspect.
Gimpei 9y ago
Maybe. But by that logic we shouldn't see much coverage of the mass shooting in Las Vegas since it only affected a few thousand concert goers.
spaceseaman 9y ago
> it's very odd that relative number of affected people is not brought up I don't think it's that odd. It might seem that way though if you're only thinking in terms of numbers. As a rough estimate, we can use the fact that "95% of customers remain without power" and "45% have access to drinking water" [1]. In other words, the numbers say the storm has likely affected all of Puerto Rico, that is about 3 million people. [1] https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1330501/dod-accelerates-hurricane-relief-response-efforts-in-puerto-rico/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1330501/dod-acc... > The Houston metro has twice the population of Puerto Rico. Surprisingly correct (the Greater Houston area has a TON of people), but I personally think you're missing an important component of the argument you're making. I don't think it's just simply "More people in Houston -> More media". I think a more accurate way to phrase it would be: "More people in Houston the media thinks more people would care about and watch TV for -> more media" In other words, I think this article is more useful to highlight why media does or does not find a certain topic worth covering. A greater population of people affected doesn't really match up with that argument. Extraordinarily few people are affected by terrorism, yet it's the bread of butter of hot news. Since the number people affected by a disaster doesn't seem to correlate with how the news covers it, I think it's wise to ask, "Why does the news think of Puerto Rico differently than the United States?", rather than assuming population is that reason because it's the simplest thing. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that most Americans find it a lot easier to empathize with Bob and Joanne in Houston rather than Jose in Puerto Rico. Take of that what you will. I believe this is what the article was trying to get at. Why does the media think it's easier to empathize with Houston? What makes Puerto Rico different? Does this speak to greater societal issues in the United States and the way its media looks at itself?
joemaller1 9y ago
The Media is very lazy, they'll cover anything they can drive to. Houston and Florida got tons of coverage because they were already there. Covering PR would mean significant personal discomfort for the reporters and crews, with no guarantee of being able to leave on their own schedule. There just don't seem to be many reporters of that ilk anymore.
- skybrian 9y ago
  I don't know what you mean? Plenty of reporters cover wars in places hard to get to.
- true_religion 9y ago
  Don't major news channels such as ABC, NBC, Fox already have affiliates or branches in Puerto Rico? It's certainly a large enough market to deserve a local news channel.

wccrawford 9y ago

I live in Florida. Millions were affected here. However, at no point was the entire state out of power, and even if it had been, we have neighboring states that we can travel to relatively easily. In fact, many of us did that to avoid the storm altogether, and only came back when it was gone. Most of us that stayed weren't out of power for more than a week... In fact, most were only out for a few days. Most people in Puerto Rico didn't have that option, and they couldn't travel anyone via land to somewhere with power. In short, Puerto Rico is much, much worse.

StudentStuff 9y ago

10% of Houston was affected by flooding. Basically all my friends in PR were affected by this hurricane, despite them being sprinkled about the island. One still has servers that are underwater from said storm, helped him stand up replacements a few days back for those. More people were affected in PR by this hurricane than those affected in Houston.

ghostly_s 9y ago
> More people were affected in PR by this hurricane than those affected in Houston. Thanks for this added context. I haven't really seen this discussed in the media coverage, which is not terribly surprising, but I guess I expected a stats-heavy outfit like 538 to touch on this aspect.

Gimpei 9y ago

Maybe. But by that logic we shouldn't see much coverage of the mass shooting in Las Vegas since it only affected a few thousand concert goers.

spaceseaman 9y ago

> it's very odd that relative number of affected people is not brought up I don't think it's that odd. It might seem that way though if you're only thinking in terms of numbers. As a rough estimate, we can use the fact that "95% of customers remain without power" and "45% have access to drinking water" [1]. In other words, the numbers say the storm has likely affected all of Puerto Rico, that is about 3 million people. [1] https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1330501/dod-accelerates-hurricane-relief-response-efforts-in-puerto-rico/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1330501/dod-acc... > The Houston metro has twice the population of Puerto Rico. Surprisingly correct (the Greater Houston area has a TON of people), but I personally think you're missing an important component of the argument you're making. I don't think it's just simply "More people in Houston -> More media". I think a more accurate way to phrase it would be: "More people in Houston the media thinks more people would care about and watch TV for -> more media" In other words, I think this article is more useful to highlight why media does or does not find a certain topic worth covering. A greater population of people affected doesn't really match up with that argument. Extraordinarily few people are affected by terrorism, yet it's the bread of butter of hot news. Since the number people affected by a disaster doesn't seem to correlate with how the news covers it, I think it's wise to ask, "Why does the news think of Puerto Rico differently than the United States?", rather than assuming population is that reason because it's the simplest thing. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that most Americans find it a lot easier to empathize with Bob and Joanne in Houston rather than Jose in Puerto Rico. Take of that what you will. I believe this is what the article was trying to get at. Why does the media think it's easier to empathize with Houston? What makes Puerto Rico different? Does this speak to greater societal issues in the United States and the way its media looks at itself?

joemaller1 9y ago

The Media is very lazy, they'll cover anything they can drive to. Houston and Florida got tons of coverage because they were already there. Covering PR would mean significant personal discomfort for the reporters and crews, with no guarantee of being able to leave on their own schedule. There just don't seem to be many reporters of that ilk anymore.

skybrian 9y ago
I don't know what you mean? Plenty of reporters cover wars in places hard to get to.
true_religion 9y ago
Don't major news channels such as ABC, NBC, Fox already have affiliates or branches in Puerto Rico? It's certainly a large enough market to deserve a local news channel.