August 29 - What the hell IRENE?!

So after days of media blitzes about the incoming catastrophic storm, turned out Irene wasn't quite as vicious as we had been led to believe.  New York didn't quite float away, and the mandatory evacuations turned out to resemble offhand suggestions.

Kind of makes me wonder.  I had always considered the weather channel and weather people a special case.  They were never right, but I had never really pictured them as fear mongering.  But, just like other members of the media, it pays for them to be outrageous.  Fox News gets to complain about the socialists and gays, basically everyone else gets to complain about the uncaring, callus conservatives.  They cater to their demographic, and I don't fault them for that.

But the weather channel?  Unlike other members of the media, they don't fall upon party lines.  They are generally seen as information to all.  I know what to expect when I turn on Fox, but I tend to think the weather is neutral.

So here's the problem: the weather channel gets more viewers coming up to a disaster.  The worse they make the disaster sound, the more viewers.  So do you trust the weather channel to tell the truth?  Even when it is against their best interest to?  Is my tinfoil hat on a little too tightly?  Should I just let bygones be bygones with the weather channel and they can do what they want?