Perspectives on TV’s Firestorm Coverage

I commend the TV stations for their diligent coverage of the local fires. First, I believe that the round-the-clock coverage kept many people at home watching who otherwise would have tried to rush to the scenes to see what was happening.

I know there are those who have complained about various aspects of the coverage. I used my channel changer quite frequently when I did not like the presentations by some reporters. A few did go overboard.

I realize what their extended coverage cost the stations with respect to the loss of ad revenues and also the huge extra costs for personnel and equipment. I appreciate and thank them for their non-commercial broadcasts.

And everybody appreciates the great and heroic work by the firefighters. Thanks to everyone involved.

M. JACKSON

Garden Grove

What if they gave a fire and no television cameras came? But, of course, that isn’t how it turned out. Instead, when an arsonist attacked Thousand Oaks, the local network affiliates rushed their crews to the scene. They interrupted all other programming to rush to the airwaves footage of flames licking at the hillsides, a veritable snuff film for firebugs.

So should we be surprised that by the next morning we had 10 fires going? And still the pompous talking heads were running with their microphones and their minicams to film every hungry ember, interrupting firefighters at work to ask inane questions, searching for injury and death, getting as close as they could to any available gore.

And what is the aftermath of all this? They continue their mediocre discussions of it on the overly abundant news shows. Meanwhile, our environment suffers: Smoke sullies the air and valuable trees have been burned and water has been sucked away. But, most of all, I think of the wildlife, the innocent rabbits, deer and birds, perhaps some endangered species among them, fleeing in vain when the meager patches we have left to them are afire. This is my plea: Next time, no film at 11.

SUSAN T. WOLFSON

Los Angeles

The TV coverage of the Southern California’s fires has been superb. It seems to me, however, that when a catastrophe of this magnitude occurs, coverage could be consolidated into a consortium of the various TV news stations so that the cost would be substantially reduced, without compromising quality.

ALVIN R. SPECTOR

Sherman Oaks