Several years ago a reporter was sitting in a canoe telling how severe the flooding was in a small town. A guy walked across the steet behind her, showing it was no where near as bad as she was pretending.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8slEPV9LyS0
It's about sensationalism and not journalism.
The news orgs send people out to get a story. The better the story, the better ther atta-boy.
If there isn't a story they create one. If the story is lame, they hype it to create sensationalism.
They choose a camera angle and scene that suggests and entire town or county or state is flooded, when it's only one small section of one road.
They'll show a couple houses that are damaged and make it seem that ALL the houses there are damaged, when the damage is limited to just the ones shown.
It's partly their fault for getting away from what was once considered an honored and respectable profession, journalism.
But most of the blame has to fall on the dumbed down general population who wants their info in 5 second sound bites.
A population who reacts to feelings and emotions, not facts and figures.
A population that is perfectly Ok with having someone on the boob tube tell them what to believe and how to react, but won't put the effort into finding out the truth and deciding for themselves. They want tabloid news.
This entire situation is made worse by a gubmint that wants everyone to leave no matter what.
Here, a wild fire now means everyone within 10 miles must evacuate regardless of risk, because it makes it EASIER FOR THEM if there are no people around.
It's a matter of convenience for them and inconvenience for their citizens. this tendency has increased dramatically over the past 10 years from something that kind of made sense ot something that is out of control.