> "People on the coasts live in floodplains too" Yes I understand that, but that's not how it's perceived. People do not have objective worldviews, and it is

> "People on the coasts live in floodplains too" Yes I understand that, but that's not how it's perceived. People do not have objective worldviews, and it is the worldviews of the general public that determine whether or not something is considered newsworthy. I'm not defending this status quo, I'm explaining it. Something else to consider: hurricanes are personified. They're given names, and therefore make convenient villains. This increases their newsworthiness. If particularly snowy winters or intense rainstorms were given names, that would increase the newsworthiness of inland floods. Another thing to consider: when an inland flood occurs due to a dam collapse, rather than because of unnamed weather systems, that becomes more newsworthy and memorable than most hurricanes. I'd say the Johnstown Flood is about as memorable, maybe moreso, than the Galveston Hurricane, despite killing fewer people. That's because the Johnstown Flood was due to a dam collapse. A dam with a name, a discrete object with human owners. That's why an inland flood in rural Pennsylvania is remembered nearly a century and a half later, while most inland floods hardly make the news at all. Consider also the Great Molasses Flood. By flood standards or even industrial disaster standards, the number of casualties were small. However everybody has heard of the Great Molasses Flood. Why? Because it happened in Boston? No, because it was molasses! That's very unusual, nobody would have anticipated that, and therefore it's newsworthy.