However, the public at large were generally exceptionally well-prepared for this event, thanks to the media presentations we were treated to. This is an overview of some of the rational material presented at the time by commercial broadcasters in Hartford, as well as some of the irrational material also presented. It is also presented in stark contrast to what often appears to happen in Florida, with media blitzes that may misinform the public into panic-buying, unnecessary mass-evacuations, and post-disaster problems.
The scientific and educational communities can play an important role in helping to prepare those who end up in the broadcast sector, to facilitate thoughtful presentations that bring science to bear on society. We can also assist local, state, and national emergency management and disaster response agencies. An excellent working relationship with the state emergency operations center in Florida's capital city provided tremendous outreach opportunities after 1992's Hurricane Andrew and Florida ended up well-served by these opportunities. But a relative lull in landfalling tropical cyclones and population shifts in the state may yet bring problems like those seen in 2004 and 2005 with numerous strong storms. Ratings may drive the sensationalism associated with disastrous events more than accuracy in coverage, and media outlets may sometimes limit information to the public owing to proprietary considerations (e.g., is the television station restricted to show graphics and interpretations from a specific private provider, as opposed to official NHC information)? This has been reported anecdotally for many storms.
In this presentation we compare and contrast some experiences with media and tropical events in Florida and Connecticut, where this writer's opinion, things were done very well, and I was pleasantly surprised. We'll explore the rather sparse history of Connecticut experiences with tropical cyclones and how a one-in-20+ year event was handled by the media.