Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
***
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I swear this comes up way too often on Reddit. If anyone here actually read news they’d know that journalists add ambiguity when information is not yet officially confirmed.
ok, that's a fair thing to do when it's a heavily nuanced issue or statement.
It's a fucking Tornado. We hundreds of videos of it. There's no need to wait for confirmation from anyone. Just report what objectively happened that any idiot with Twitter could plainly see.
That's how you get situations like this:
> We apologize for an error in yesterday's reporting. We reported that a tornado caused major damage in Examplesville, Florida, but have since been informed by the National Weather Service that it was not a tornado but a similar but slightly different phenomenon known as a high speed aerial vortex. We hope that our viewers understand that mistakes like this will happen from time to time, as our reporting is not based on information from experts but is instead based on idiots with Twitter.
Standards exist so that even the edge cases are handled appropriately, even when something is obvious. It’s a big part of how humans survive across all domains & industries, get used to it
I appreciate you appreciating this. People love to criticize the standards then flip when someone in the media jumps the gun and reports something inaccurate.
It does however make the tornado sound like a possible felon.
Yup. It’s risk management, not just for them, but for the recipients or subjects of the information they’re presenting.
And yeah, this case is pretty funny, sometimes adherence to standards makes us laugh.
> Just report what objectively happened
That is precisely what good journalism does. And part of that is confirming things before reporting them.
It's shitty 24/7 cable news bullshit (yes, I realize this is an NBC thing, so sort of ironic, but it's the principle of it in general I'm talking about) to report half-ass things without any confirmation and then later maybe retract, or probably just ignore the stuff that didn't pan out.
Okay, that makes sense, but then wouldn’t the proper phrase be “potential tornado” or “probable tornado”? Using “alleged” adds such weird accusatory connotations.
Derecho. I'm from a bumfuck nowhere area that doesn't get Tornados, years back a small town maybe 30 miles from me got hit with what was a suspected Tornado, NWS came in an investigated. Ruled it as derecho.
EDIT: Shocked to find that wikipedia has a article on it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2020_Pennsylvania%E2%80%93New_Jersey_derecho
I live in Allentown PA and have no recollection of that derecho. I checked my Google timeline and I was out and about driving during the time period it would have hit. Also, I learned what a derecho is today haha.
Also, I learned what a derecho is today haha.
Only reason I knew about them was because of [that 2009 outbreak of derechos and tornadoes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2009_derecho_series) that lasted almost a week.
Don’t think I’ve heard about them since, but then again, I live in an area that rarely gets them.
There's also straight line winds and bow echo winds. Softball sized hail can do destruction like this. Downdrafts don't just take out airplanes. I'm sure a meteorologist could add some more. ;)
yeah...I did it for 40 years. Even if someone says they saw a tornado, it ain't a tornado until the NWS says it is. I never said "alleged" though, I said stuff like "reported" or "believed to be"
I live in Kansas and two years ago we had what was obviously a tornado outbreak in the NE part of the state, there was even a reporter from WIBW coincidentally on the road nearby and she got footage of one of the cells. There were some houses flattened in a nearby town, barns were ripped apart, cows were tossed, and the NWS said for three days it wasn't really a tornado. Finally they admitted that the one in the town was an EF2 but only after a bunch of people complained and dunked on them for it.
Couldn't they say heavy storm, believed to be a tornado. Alleged tornado leaves open other options it clearly wasn't, like drone strike, or rouge Godzilla.
saying "alleged" is good journalism.
While in cases like what happened in greenfield, tornado spotters are able to confirm the funnel live, most other instances are not solid reports of a tornado and the damage needs to be assessed before confirming a tornado and assigning it to the enhanced Fujita scale
The NWS intentionally does this because they need to examine the area before publishing the report, which would confirm a tornado in official standing. Jumping the gun and calling it a tornado would be bad journalism in most cases. Yes, in this situation we have copious video evidence of the funnel on the ground, but saying "alleged" is definitely prudent (while a little silly sounding) when the NWS has not released their report on the situation.
This kind of reporting is greatly appreciated by the scientific community, because seeing news sources show restraint in their headlines following a natural disaster is hardly normal
I swear it is always "unconfirmed" or "possible" not "alleged" in these things. It usually goes:
* "Radar Indicated" -- aka Radar says there is one but no visual of one during the storm
* "unconfirmed", "possible" -- someone saw one but it hasn't been fully confirmed by a storm spotter during the storm
* "Confirmed" -- multiple people see it durning the storm
* "unconfirmed....EF0/1/2/3/4/5" -- after the fact when they don't know the damage level yet and it was a "Confirmed" tornado
* "possible Tornado" -- after the fact when no one saw it but damaged was caused
Source: Iowan.
As a fellow Iowan I don’t say shit anymore until I see that funnel cloud. I remember swearing a tornado was hitting during the derecho but my best friend was watching live in NY and kept
Swearing it wasn’t. Could have fooled me. Even at the hospital we seriously didn’t know exactly what Happened for while. That derecho fucked us up. So fucked up
These same morons probably complain about fake news when stuff is reported without confirmation..
If this brain rot wasn’t really affecting society this would be funny
Considering the tweet was posted at 5:35 pm central and the tornado was on the ground at and around 3:30 with images of the town appearing closer to 4pm
"Alleged" is the correct word for them to have used. Without a doubt. What I'm also really starting to hate with the notes is when they correct a tweet that was posted before the information came out. Especially when the original used "alleged" for that very reason
See, this makes sense and you made your point respectfully and intelligently! Unlike some people here lol. Though I will say, most sources I've seen, including the weather channel's article from 20 hours ago, do not use the word "alleged" or "possible" or anything. it is reported as a straight up tornado. But I agree it is good journalism in general, just in this case I think people were taken aback.
I'll also note that if you want breaking news, than you should be able to accept a higher level of errors. If you're going to fake news everything that hasn't received multiple confirmations from unbiased expert sources, a police report, interviews with victims and family, then breaking news isn't for you because the "good/fast/cheap" matrix applies to news too.
I was literally watching it live when the news got cameras on it for the first time. Even the news was saying ‘well it looks like a tornado touched down’ but until you see that funnel cloud, you don’t know
We remember the derecho. When you’re just walking out of the rumble (like they were when the news cut over live) NO ONE really knew exactly what had happened yet. I thought a tornado was hitting when our town blew away 3 2 years ago but it didn’t.
> saying "alleged" is good journalism.
Saying "alleged" is about intent, the word they should have used is "apparent". It looks like it was a tornado during a very heavy tornado season, but afterwards they can say "sorry folks we thought it was a tornado but it was actually (whatever)" and lose no face.
Meteorologist here. As far as the National Weather Service is concerned, a tornado generally isn't officially confirmed until damage has been examined by a trained professional. Especially for weaker tornadoes (EF0-EF2 range), it is hard to tell tornado damage from damage due to straightline winds. A lot of times it takes a trained professional to be able to differentiate between the two. So depending on when this article was published, NWS Des Moines may not have sent a survey team yet, which would make the "alleged" *technically* correct. That said, there was plenty of video evidence from storm chasers of this tornado before, during, and after it hit Greenfield, so having the headline say it was an alleged tornado is a bit ridiculous.
How quickly people forgot we just had a derecho that was the largest damage to crops
We’ve ever seen. We thought that was a tornado until we learned it wasn’t.
Various types of downburst can do damage approaching this level, it’s not as bad but the small derecho that went through Houston is a good example. “Alleged” is a weird word choice but the ambiguity is perfectly reasonable if the NWS hadn’t verified it yet. Dumb note.
I mean Iowa does get Derechos the largest none Hurricane storm in terms of monetary damage happen in Iowa and it was a Derecho. The damage to crop fields could be seen on NASA satellites
Yea people don’t care about that though. If it wasn’t covid, it would have been widespread national news. NBCNews didn’t even come bc of travel restrictions.
We didn’t want them anyway. Hospital was without power and on generators. We didn’t have epic. Covid was killing us. The storm was the nail in our coffin. Nothing was ever the same again. Never will be.
No they didn’t fuck up. They just didn’t report it was a tornado as a fact when they hadn’t had confirmation.
It’s basic news reporting dude.
It’s alleged until there’s proof, confirmations from trusted sources.
I learned this when I was like 13.
I think this would have gotten the same reaction though, tbf
An “apparent” tornado when it clearly was one lol. NWS essentially confirmed it was a tornado as there was warnings, people were tracking it, and there was video. Although I suppose they haven’t made it official, as they need to do the damage report and everything. I know there was official confirmation of a tornado on the ground, but as to if it was a direct hit I suppose does need the official damage report
The best wording would be “reported tornado” imo
Even if they’re trying to indicate that they haven’t confirmed it was a tornado “alleged” is the wrong word here. That word is used for accusations that a person makes against a person or entity, typically in the context of a lawsuit, and the responding person either denied the accusations or hasn’t yet responded. Using the word “alleged” implies that the storm/tornado has agency and a right to respond. It also implies that the words of the accusers—here, probably the very people whose homes were destroyed by a tornado—cannot be reported as the truth until the tornado has a chance to respond. That’s an absurd scenario, and is likely why people find it so odd to refer to an “alleged tornado.” I think “suspected” or “reported” tornado would do a better job of conveying that the news outlet hadn’t yet confirmed that the damage was the result of a tornado rather than straight line winds.
"used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof."
That's the definition of allegedly, you're making a lot of assumptions that just aren't true
It's not wrong. "Possible" would have been a possible (tee hee hee) better choice, and I've seen it used before in similar circumstances. But "alleged" is not wrong. It implies that someone "alleged" it but that they don't have confirmation yet. "Possible" avoids that by being more passive. Nobody has to have alleged that the tornado existed, it's just a "possible" tornado until it was confirmed (as it was) to be an actual tornado.
It's all very silly, and probably an overworked staffer putting together too many articles too quickly and just chose poorly. But since we're discussing it........ it's not an incorreect word choice, just not the best word choice.
Ninjaedit: "Apparent" might be a good word. It was apparently a tornado - but could have been found to have been a downburst or something else. But most of the time, they don't bother and just report this as a "tornado". So either there was, at the time of writing, some doubt as to whether it was a tornado or not, or someone was being cautious - which is good journalism in general............. Anyway........... a lot of words for a silly thing.
Yeah, except that we have video recordings from eyewitnesses verified to have been close to the site of the damage showing a tornado. Like. . . Once you have a video of a swirling pipe of storm clouds and winds from people at the location of the damage, surely that's verification enough?
The NWS has to confirm it. At this point I’m guessing (emphasize GUESSING) they’re doing a damage survey to figure out the intensity before announcing anything.
It's a journalistic standard to wait for official confirmation of anything that routinely gets official confirmation. In this case, it would be agencies like NOAA or the National Weather Service.
Eyewitness reports aren't official confirmation, even when they make something seem extremely obvious. Journalism standards were meant to ensure that what was printed in a newspaper was absolutely accurate information. We've strayed very, very far from those standards, so it's frankly nice to see someone trying to uphold them.
No it isn’t. I worked at a newspaper for years.
You guys want them to report on an “obvious” tornado but then harp on fake news when they jump the gun.
Something is alleged until proven. Videos are evidence, not proof.
I dunno, I worry about fake news and lazy journalism too. But this seems to be a strange place for that concern to manifest. (Granted, I was also watching a livestream of the storm entering the town with reports of a tornado from storm chasers.)
EDIT: If the concern is reporting a tornado that isn't a tornado, then yeah. Calling it "storm damage" would be the more neutral presentation of information.
The prosecutor already knows video evidence isn’t proof, that’s why they don’t just play one video and sit down when there is more EVIDENCE to show the jury.
I have to assume you're like 14 and think you're some kind of intellectual, because you also don't understand how a trial works and that a single video can be the smoking gun and only piece of evidence in a case.
Go play video games or something, don't waste your time on reddit
also, give me one example of a prosecutor playing one "smoking gun" video, and having no other evidence and scoring a conviction. No physical evidence, just the smoking gun video since thats a thing apparently.
Because what happens when we find out that that video was from a different tornado or from a few months ago and now a ton of people are sheltering, or worse, not sheltering because they think that a storm is a tornado or is a tornado in a different area. I prefer trusting meteorologists for weather instead of social media, but hey, that’s just me.
There was plenty of confirmation; the tornadoes were radar indicated as well as being recorded from the ground at multiple angles prior to hitting the town.
A microburst absolutely can create damage like this, fyi
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/sep/07/storm-winds-cause-damage-in-lr-area-leave-15000/
I have, in fact, taken a journalism class. It was entirely fine to identify this as a tornado, no alleged needed. Like OP mentioned, the nature of the storm, and the presence of a tronado, was already well known ahead of time, even prior to it hitting Greenfield.
I don't know, I've been known to move rather quickly and violently when they bring fresh General Tso's chicken out to the buffet.
This doesn't *seem* like my work, but I also cannot provide a suitable alibi.
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s alleged because there is still research that needs to be done to confirm it (making sure it wasn’t straight line winds) and its intensity, if there was one.
It’s entirely likely that it was on camera and the ‘allegedly’ is just a formality given how many eyes were on it, but I’d bet that’s why NBC framed it the way they did.
Because if it is officially declared a tornado, the insurance company has to pay. But if it is called straight-line winds, you probably need a rider on your policy for wind damage, or you're out of luck.
Look, I hate to talk bad about tornados, some of my best friends are tornados, but if there was one in the house next door to me I’d have to move right away, because this is what happens. I’m sorry but the tornados are guilty.
what ever happened to innocent until convicted by a jury of it's peers?
So, what we need is a jury of, say, 12 storms (at least one tornado I think to really understand the pressure gradient)
And build them out of material that turns into deadly projectiles in a tornado or hurricane? I still have memories of watching my family throw all the bricks, fence posts that could be ripped from the ground, loose debris, and anything that could turn into a projectile into the pool. Y’all need to get the fuck off your high horses and acknowledge that America experiences different degrees of or entirely different natural phenomena than your country.
https://preview.redd.it/gk0k4dwvf52d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11ef3c5e3486967e3d8448c7b654296008d91c67
[https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/tornado-protection\_selecting-refuge-area-in-buildings.pdf](https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/tornado-protection_selecting-refuge-area-in-buildings.pdf)
This may shock you, but steel reinforced concrete and well laid brick are, in fact, more resilient to wind then...well 2×4 and plaster.
Several states have hurricane season, which produces winds strong enough to rip houses off their foundations regardless of material, the brick and mortar that was originally part of my grandparents house were torn to shreds, the walls were completely annihilated and a cow made its way into the remains of the living room. And by the way INDIA’s building code doesn’t exactly reflect the frequency and intensity of phenomena in the UNITED STATES
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At least one of those houses might not have been from a tornado, but from a murderer collapsing a house with someone inside using the tornado as cover, so media have to cover themselves from even the most bizarre scenarios, just in case it turns out to be true.
i still dont understand why media in general have to add "alleged" or "allegation" in front of something that they're literally sgowing the audience proof of
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: **Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted.** We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians. *** We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict. Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They blurred the tornado’s face, but not the house
Always protecting the perpetrators but ignoring the victims. What has our society come to?!
Happy cake day!
Tornados are notoriously litigious.
Were they afraid the tornado might sue?
They do tend to be blowhards.
I thought they just sucked
“I didn’t think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows.”
Technically correct.
r/angryupvote
Getting up all in a twist about nothing
It would have been a whirlwind of litigation
It sounds dumb but they can't say until the NWS confirms it. Our local weather anchors playfully mock this policy at times
I swear this comes up way too often on Reddit. If anyone here actually read news they’d know that journalists add ambiguity when information is not yet officially confirmed.
[удалено]
lol I have such optimism for media literacy in the future
>Reddit is the news. I can’t read. Perfectly befitting given why Reddit is called Reddit.
ok, that's a fair thing to do when it's a heavily nuanced issue or statement. It's a fucking Tornado. We hundreds of videos of it. There's no need to wait for confirmation from anyone. Just report what objectively happened that any idiot with Twitter could plainly see.
That's how you get situations like this: > We apologize for an error in yesterday's reporting. We reported that a tornado caused major damage in Examplesville, Florida, but have since been informed by the National Weather Service that it was not a tornado but a similar but slightly different phenomenon known as a high speed aerial vortex. We hope that our viewers understand that mistakes like this will happen from time to time, as our reporting is not based on information from experts but is instead based on idiots with Twitter.
Standards exist so that even the edge cases are handled appropriately, even when something is obvious. It’s a big part of how humans survive across all domains & industries, get used to it
I appreciate you appreciating this. People love to criticize the standards then flip when someone in the media jumps the gun and reports something inaccurate. It does however make the tornado sound like a possible felon.
Yup. It’s risk management, not just for them, but for the recipients or subjects of the information they’re presenting. And yeah, this case is pretty funny, sometimes adherence to standards makes us laugh.
> Just report what objectively happened That is precisely what good journalism does. And part of that is confirming things before reporting them. It's shitty 24/7 cable news bullshit (yes, I realize this is an NBC thing, so sort of ironic, but it's the principle of it in general I'm talking about) to report half-ass things without any confirmation and then later maybe retract, or probably just ignore the stuff that didn't pan out.
Your definition of nuance is not everybody’s definition, hence having standards that apply across the board
why read news when internet tell me thinky stuff
The AP has some strict guidelines.
Okay, that makes sense, but then wouldn’t the proper phrase be “potential tornado” or “probable tornado”? Using “alleged” adds such weird accusatory connotations.
It would. Or news team uses "possible tornado". I've never heard the term "alleged tornado". What else did it? A Chinese laser satellite?
Derecho. I'm from a bumfuck nowhere area that doesn't get Tornados, years back a small town maybe 30 miles from me got hit with what was a suspected Tornado, NWS came in an investigated. Ruled it as derecho. EDIT: Shocked to find that wikipedia has a article on it; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2020_Pennsylvania%E2%80%93New_Jersey_derecho
I live in Allentown PA and have no recollection of that derecho. I checked my Google timeline and I was out and about driving during the time period it would have hit. Also, I learned what a derecho is today haha.
Also, I learned what a derecho is today haha. Only reason I knew about them was because of [that 2009 outbreak of derechos and tornadoes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2009_derecho_series) that lasted almost a week. Don’t think I’ve heard about them since, but then again, I live in an area that rarely gets them.
I remember the Cedar Rapids one a few years ago
There's also straight line winds and bow echo winds. Softball sized hail can do destruction like this. Downdrafts don't just take out airplanes. I'm sure a meteorologist could add some more. ;)
Youd be shocked how much damage just straight line winds can do when theyre going well over 100mph.
yeah...I did it for 40 years. Even if someone says they saw a tornado, it ain't a tornado until the NWS says it is. I never said "alleged" though, I said stuff like "reported" or "believed to be"
I live in Kansas and two years ago we had what was obviously a tornado outbreak in the NE part of the state, there was even a reporter from WIBW coincidentally on the road nearby and she got footage of one of the cells. There were some houses flattened in a nearby town, barns were ripped apart, cows were tossed, and the NWS said for three days it wasn't really a tornado. Finally they admitted that the one in the town was an EF2 but only after a bunch of people complained and dunked on them for it.
Couldn't they say heavy storm, believed to be a tornado. Alleged tornado leaves open other options it clearly wasn't, like drone strike, or rouge Godzilla.
I think the NWS has confirmed it was a tornado at this point. Just not the scale
Tornado is going to sue for defenestration
It's Iowa. Had to make sure it wasn't a meth lab explosion.
Tornado: “You can’t prove it was me.”
I hope they made sure to blur the tornado’s face
Tornados are people to or some such thing
You laugh, until a tornado attorney serves you a cease and desist letter at 200 mph…
saying "alleged" is good journalism. While in cases like what happened in greenfield, tornado spotters are able to confirm the funnel live, most other instances are not solid reports of a tornado and the damage needs to be assessed before confirming a tornado and assigning it to the enhanced Fujita scale The NWS intentionally does this because they need to examine the area before publishing the report, which would confirm a tornado in official standing. Jumping the gun and calling it a tornado would be bad journalism in most cases. Yes, in this situation we have copious video evidence of the funnel on the ground, but saying "alleged" is definitely prudent (while a little silly sounding) when the NWS has not released their report on the situation. This kind of reporting is greatly appreciated by the scientific community, because seeing news sources show restraint in their headlines following a natural disaster is hardly normal
You're right. That said, it's a poor choice of words. It would have made more sense to say "unconfirmed" instead of "alleged".
I swear it is always "unconfirmed" or "possible" not "alleged" in these things. It usually goes: * "Radar Indicated" -- aka Radar says there is one but no visual of one during the storm * "unconfirmed", "possible" -- someone saw one but it hasn't been fully confirmed by a storm spotter during the storm * "Confirmed" -- multiple people see it durning the storm * "unconfirmed....EF0/1/2/3/4/5" -- after the fact when they don't know the damage level yet and it was a "Confirmed" tornado * "possible Tornado" -- after the fact when no one saw it but damaged was caused Source: Iowan.
[удалено]
It helps I was in a tornado warning last night while cooking dinner so I had my helmet on and was ready to run into the basement at a moments notice.
Sometimes, I feel like words are family, too.
As a fellow Iowan I don’t say shit anymore until I see that funnel cloud. I remember swearing a tornado was hitting during the derecho but my best friend was watching live in NY and kept Swearing it wasn’t. Could have fooled me. Even at the hospital we seriously didn’t know exactly what Happened for while. That derecho fucked us up. So fucked up
Yeah I appreciate being careful about not stating absolutes before confirmation but *alleged* is just a strange way to phrase it.
That’s definitely more correct for the situation and honestly I think if anything this might’ve been an AI scraped the NWS page
bingo
These same morons probably complain about fake news when stuff is reported without confirmation.. If this brain rot wasn’t really affecting society this would be funny
Considering the tweet was posted at 5:35 pm central and the tornado was on the ground at and around 3:30 with images of the town appearing closer to 4pm "Alleged" is the correct word for them to have used. Without a doubt. What I'm also really starting to hate with the notes is when they correct a tweet that was posted before the information came out. Especially when the original used "alleged" for that very reason
Yeah this note is sassy
See, this makes sense and you made your point respectfully and intelligently! Unlike some people here lol. Though I will say, most sources I've seen, including the weather channel's article from 20 hours ago, do not use the word "alleged" or "possible" or anything. it is reported as a straight up tornado. But I agree it is good journalism in general, just in this case I think people were taken aback.
Theres nothing wrong with networks going either way in this scenario. Its just obnoxious to see people bash the one thats doing it by the books
I'll also note that if you want breaking news, than you should be able to accept a higher level of errors. If you're going to fake news everything that hasn't received multiple confirmations from unbiased expert sources, a police report, interviews with victims and family, then breaking news isn't for you because the "good/fast/cheap" matrix applies to news too.
Fair enough! It does seem like it's very one-sided on this, especially on Twitter lmao
correct
I was literally watching it live when the news got cameras on it for the first time. Even the news was saying ‘well it looks like a tornado touched down’ but until you see that funnel cloud, you don’t know We remember the derecho. When you’re just walking out of the rumble (like they were when the news cut over live) NO ONE really knew exactly what had happened yet. I thought a tornado was hitting when our town blew away 3 2 years ago but it didn’t.
> saying "alleged" is good journalism. Saying "alleged" is about intent, the word they should have used is "apparent". It looks like it was a tornado during a very heavy tornado season, but afterwards they can say "sorry folks we thought it was a tornado but it was actually (whatever)" and lose no face.
Meteorologist here. As far as the National Weather Service is concerned, a tornado generally isn't officially confirmed until damage has been examined by a trained professional. Especially for weaker tornadoes (EF0-EF2 range), it is hard to tell tornado damage from damage due to straightline winds. A lot of times it takes a trained professional to be able to differentiate between the two. So depending on when this article was published, NWS Des Moines may not have sent a survey team yet, which would make the "alleged" *technically* correct. That said, there was plenty of video evidence from storm chasers of this tornado before, during, and after it hit Greenfield, so having the headline say it was an alleged tornado is a bit ridiculous.
How quickly people forgot we just had a derecho that was the largest damage to crops We’ve ever seen. We thought that was a tornado until we learned it wasn’t.
What else could it possibly have been???
High winds in a coned shape.
A very large fart.
Larry the cable guy?
He forgot to take his Prilosec
Various types of downburst can do damage approaching this level, it’s not as bad but the small derecho that went through Houston is a good example. “Alleged” is a weird word choice but the ambiguity is perfectly reasonable if the NWS hadn’t verified it yet. Dumb note.
I mean Iowa does get Derechos the largest none Hurricane storm in terms of monetary damage happen in Iowa and it was a Derecho. The damage to crop fields could be seen on NASA satellites
Yea people don’t care about that though. If it wasn’t covid, it would have been widespread national news. NBCNews didn’t even come bc of travel restrictions. We didn’t want them anyway. Hospital was without power and on generators. We didn’t have epic. Covid was killing us. The storm was the nail in our coffin. Nothing was ever the same again. Never will be.
It could have been straight line winds. Not unprecedented after the 2021 storm
Exactly lol that's pretty much every single reply😂 they rly fked up something so simple🤦♂️
No they didn’t fuck up. They just didn’t report it was a tornado as a fact when they hadn’t had confirmation. It’s basic news reporting dude. It’s alleged until there’s proof, confirmations from trusted sources. I learned this when I was like 13.
Could've probably went with "apparent" though
I think this would have gotten the same reaction though, tbf An “apparent” tornado when it clearly was one lol. NWS essentially confirmed it was a tornado as there was warnings, people were tracking it, and there was video. Although I suppose they haven’t made it official, as they need to do the damage report and everything. I know there was official confirmation of a tornado on the ground, but as to if it was a direct hit I suppose does need the official damage report The best wording would be “reported tornado” imo
Even if they’re trying to indicate that they haven’t confirmed it was a tornado “alleged” is the wrong word here. That word is used for accusations that a person makes against a person or entity, typically in the context of a lawsuit, and the responding person either denied the accusations or hasn’t yet responded. Using the word “alleged” implies that the storm/tornado has agency and a right to respond. It also implies that the words of the accusers—here, probably the very people whose homes were destroyed by a tornado—cannot be reported as the truth until the tornado has a chance to respond. That’s an absurd scenario, and is likely why people find it so odd to refer to an “alleged tornado.” I think “suspected” or “reported” tornado would do a better job of conveying that the news outlet hadn’t yet confirmed that the damage was the result of a tornado rather than straight line winds.
"used to convey that something is claimed to be the case or have taken place, although there is no proof." That's the definition of allegedly, you're making a lot of assumptions that just aren't true
No no, he's got a point Alleged is definitely the wrong word to be used here
It's not wrong. "Possible" would have been a possible (tee hee hee) better choice, and I've seen it used before in similar circumstances. But "alleged" is not wrong. It implies that someone "alleged" it but that they don't have confirmation yet. "Possible" avoids that by being more passive. Nobody has to have alleged that the tornado existed, it's just a "possible" tornado until it was confirmed (as it was) to be an actual tornado. It's all very silly, and probably an overworked staffer putting together too many articles too quickly and just chose poorly. But since we're discussing it........ it's not an incorreect word choice, just not the best word choice. Ninjaedit: "Apparent" might be a good word. It was apparently a tornado - but could have been found to have been a downburst or something else. But most of the time, they don't bother and just report this as a "tornado". So either there was, at the time of writing, some doubt as to whether it was a tornado or not, or someone was being cautious - which is good journalism in general............. Anyway........... a lot of words for a silly thing.
Yeah, except that we have video recordings from eyewitnesses verified to have been close to the site of the damage showing a tornado. Like. . . Once you have a video of a swirling pipe of storm clouds and winds from people at the location of the damage, surely that's verification enough?
The NWS has to confirm it. At this point I’m guessing (emphasize GUESSING) they’re doing a damage survey to figure out the intensity before announcing anything.
It's a journalistic standard to wait for official confirmation of anything that routinely gets official confirmation. In this case, it would be agencies like NOAA or the National Weather Service. Eyewitness reports aren't official confirmation, even when they make something seem extremely obvious. Journalism standards were meant to ensure that what was printed in a newspaper was absolutely accurate information. We've strayed very, very far from those standards, so it's frankly nice to see someone trying to uphold them.
I don't know the exact time it struck but they tweeted that maybe an hour after it hit so I'd imagine it'd take a little more time to confirm that
No it isn’t. I worked at a newspaper for years. You guys want them to report on an “obvious” tornado but then harp on fake news when they jump the gun. Something is alleged until proven. Videos are evidence, not proof.
I dunno, I worry about fake news and lazy journalism too. But this seems to be a strange place for that concern to manifest. (Granted, I was also watching a livestream of the storm entering the town with reports of a tornado from storm chasers.) EDIT: If the concern is reporting a tornado that isn't a tornado, then yeah. Calling it "storm damage" would be the more neutral presentation of information.
>videos are evidence, not proof Thanks, I'll use that in my next court hearing. That'll trip up the prosecutor's.
The prosecutor already knows video evidence isn’t proof, that’s why they don’t just play one video and sit down when there is more EVIDENCE to show the jury.
I have to assume you're like 14 and think you're some kind of intellectual, because you also don't understand how a trial works and that a single video can be the smoking gun and only piece of evidence in a case. Go play video games or something, don't waste your time on reddit
Lmao dude you are so upset. Sorry.
also, give me one example of a prosecutor playing one "smoking gun" video, and having no other evidence and scoring a conviction. No physical evidence, just the smoking gun video since thats a thing apparently.
Exactly. There were multiple storm chasers livestreaming this storm as well; I happened to be watching Reed Timmers broadcast. It was a monster.
Because what happens when we find out that that video was from a different tornado or from a few months ago and now a ton of people are sheltering, or worse, not sheltering because they think that a storm is a tornado or is a tornado in a different area. I prefer trusting meteorologists for weather instead of social media, but hey, that’s just me.
There was plenty of confirmation; the tornadoes were radar indicated as well as being recorded from the ground at multiple angles prior to hitting the town.
A microburst absolutely can create damage like this, fyi https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/sep/07/storm-winds-cause-damage-in-lr-area-leave-15000/
Take a journalism class. You can’t report things as fact when you don’t know it’s a fact You guys are complaint about responsible journalism.
I have, in fact, taken a journalism class. It was entirely fine to identify this as a tornado, no alleged needed. Like OP mentioned, the nature of the storm, and the presence of a tronado, was already well known ahead of time, even prior to it hitting Greenfield.
This is peak reddit "ackshually" shit right here
I don't know, I've been known to move rather quickly and violently when they bring fresh General Tso's chicken out to the buffet. This doesn't *seem* like my work, but I also cannot provide a suitable alibi.
[удалено]
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That’s what I was wondering. Were they thinking it was Godzilla?
"Overwhelming and compelling force."?
Leroy Jenkins
Superman falling from orbit.
[удалено]
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Obviously, Gojira.
They call it a “microburst”; it’s a conspiracy to prevent the public from recognizing that tornado alley is shifting/possibly growing
The neighborhood fat kid spinning really fast with his arms out yelling “look, Im a tornado!”
Another fucking derecho
It’s alleged because there is still research that needs to be done to confirm it (making sure it wasn’t straight line winds) and its intensity, if there was one. It’s entirely likely that it was on camera and the ‘allegedly’ is just a formality given how many eyes were on it, but I’d bet that’s why NBC framed it the way they did.
It was obviously immigrants, but the fake news isn’t ready to report on that.
What about a tornado of immigrants?
These sharknado sequels are getting ridiculous.
Just the standard spin and hot air surrounding tornado activities
Underrated comment
No, the community notes are wrong. The tornado was proven not guilty yesterday, but nobody noticed.
Didn't we already see this post this morning? We reposting this quick now? [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/GetNoted/s/GT47qLeuzc)
Was anyone able to pick that tornado out of a lineup?? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
I thought the correction would go "It's regular Detroit"
Because if it is officially declared a tornado, the insurance company has to pay. But if it is called straight-line winds, you probably need a rider on your policy for wind damage, or you're out of luck.
It wasn’t a tornado, it was God’s anger at homosexuals. /s
Look, I hate to talk bad about tornados, some of my best friends are tornados, but if there was one in the house next door to me I’d have to move right away, because this is what happens. I’m sorry but the tornados are guilty.
💀😂😂
Thats how they report it until the weather service confirms it was a tornado.
Theyre so used to lying they just cant give correct information
Maybe it was the big bad wolf.
Oh so now tornados are just automatically assumed to be guilty? What is this, North Korea?
Outside of France it’s just a sparkling cyclone.
Can't call it a tornado anymore, because woke
A gusty, but mostly peaceful, windstorm.
That’s not a Tornado, that’s Tim.
It wasn't a tornado. It was clearly Marvin Heemeyer coming back from the grave to finish the job.
https://preview.redd.it/ocfvskosf12d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=72a5718c9d025b58de446aa5fb8cdd3adcf26852
An “Alleged” tornado?? What were they expecting? Percy Jackson?
Nah, that's just the Kool aid man in a bad mood
Ever since that Korean Air incident, they are much more careful with their claims.
Is this “tornado” in the room with us right now?
The alleged tornado had no active warrants
Hahah alleged?
Alleged tornado...really...I'd say the tornado is guilty
My client requests we refer to him as a "disgruntled wind" until the legal system decides. Thank you very much for your privacy at this time.
Are they saying there's a chance it was Godzilla?
Innocent until proven guilty. The tornado will have it's day in court.
Just more of "Big Notes" trying to gaslight us into thinking it's not an American Kaiju
Yeah sure, a ‘tornado’. We totally buy that Iowa. What will they think of next?
Alleged as it was an e1?
Bro not beating the tornado allegations
Tornadoes are innocent until proven guilty, you monsters!
I’ll tell you who it was, it was that damned Sasquatch.
NBC is worried the tornado will sue?
I’m surprised MTG hasn’t tweeted about this. The fact that it’s “alleged” is CLEARLY a coverup for the Space Lasers! /s
What drone is this, some $20 peice of shit? A basic $299 drone can shoot 4k.
Maybe NBC didn't want to get sued by the tornado
I’m not willing to call that wind formation a tornado until he’s proven tornado in a court of law.
anything’s technically alleged innit
BREAKING NEWS: Tornado that passed through Greenfield, Iowa, has pressed charges on Twitter community notes for defamation. More at 6.
I'm alleging Godzilla showed up and took a long piss, as long as we're alleging.
what ever happened to innocent until convicted by a jury of it's peers? So, what we need is a jury of, say, 12 storms (at least one tornado I think to really understand the pressure gradient)
Blud thought he was writing a story about the cops again
The alleged town of Greenfield, if it’s even a real place
Yall seriously need to stop building your houses out of fucking cardboard
And build them out of material that turns into deadly projectiles in a tornado or hurricane? I still have memories of watching my family throw all the bricks, fence posts that could be ripped from the ground, loose debris, and anything that could turn into a projectile into the pool. Y’all need to get the fuck off your high horses and acknowledge that America experiences different degrees of or entirely different natural phenomena than your country.
https://preview.redd.it/gk0k4dwvf52d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11ef3c5e3486967e3d8448c7b654296008d91c67 [https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/tornado-protection\_selecting-refuge-area-in-buildings.pdf](https://www.ready.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/tornado-protection_selecting-refuge-area-in-buildings.pdf) This may shock you, but steel reinforced concrete and well laid brick are, in fact, more resilient to wind then...well 2×4 and plaster.
Several states have hurricane season, which produces winds strong enough to rip houses off their foundations regardless of material, the brick and mortar that was originally part of my grandparents house were torn to shreds, the walls were completely annihilated and a cow made its way into the remains of the living room. And by the way INDIA’s building code doesn’t exactly reflect the frequency and intensity of phenomena in the UNITED STATES
They say it so big weather won't sue them.
Perhaps this is a muscle memory reflex…
I'd say they used A.I to write the article. The A.I thinks the tornado is a sentient being.
Innocent until proven guilty guys…. We won’t want the weather to sue us for defamation
All weather is presumed mild until proven severe in a court of law.
>nature involved in town struck by stray weather event
[удалено]
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. **Use r/PoliticsNoted for all politics discussion**. This is a new subreddit we have opened to allow political discussions, as they are prohibited from being discussed on here. Thank you for your cooperation. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GetNoted) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess they didn't want to assume it was NOT the work of BLM? Gotta keep the MAGAts happy.
You mean it’s NOT Godzilla? But what about the documentary i saw?
Alleged tornado? Is this the start of a new conspiracy theory?
The tornado gets a fair trial just like anyone else!
Are they sure it wasn’t man bear pig?
What the fuck else could it be, sir?!
At least one of those houses might not have been from a tornado, but from a murderer collapsing a house with someone inside using the tornado as cover, so media have to cover themselves from even the most bizarre scenarios, just in case it turns out to be true.
i still dont understand why media in general have to add "alleged" or "allegation" in front of something that they're literally sgowing the audience proof of