There was so much coverage of this hurricane. The Weather Channel
had coverage all day Saturday and most of Sunday. I watched a lot it myself. I don't know how many people tuned in to the coverage. It was an amazing storm, in a sense, that it passed through so many states in the eastern part of the United States.
Was all the wall to wall coverage necessary? I guess that depends on who you talk to. I think there was at times too much coverage. When a storm hits an area there is nothing anyone can do about it. If there is a need to rescue people, then the first responders are there to do that. There is no need to have a reporter standing in high water with strong winds blowing just to show you that a hurricane is happening. It certainly was important to keep the public informed. If you lived in one of the states that the hurricane hit, you definitely needed to know what was going on. Even if you didn't live on the east coast, the hurricane affected other parts of the country. Many flights to the east coast were cancelled because of the storm. Many flights scheduled to leave the east coast were cancelled.
The media that covered this event also showed pictures that regular people took of the devastation. In fact, there were probably more pictures from the public than from the media that I saw. This storm didn't cause the destruction that many meteorologists, state, local and federal officials forecast. New York was just one of the states that the hurricane hit, but it seemed to get more coverage than any other state. Maybe that is one of the reasons that there was so much coverage. After all, New York City is the number one media market in the United States. As they say in the electronic media, stay tuned.