06/20/11 132 W, 1 I - + 1 - 2 This Morning's Two Alarms / Groveland Avenue
Two alarms at 211 Groveland Avenue, a two-story, wood-frame, residential structure with 3,910 square-feet. Built 1917, say tax records. Built 1912, says the NBC 17 story. See also this WRAL story. Operated as a bed and breakfast called the Cameron Park Inn. Both guests evacuated safely. Cause determined as lightning. Fire damage to third floor, which was destroyed. First and second floors with smoke and water damage. Dispatched 1:45 a.m. First unit arriving three minutes later. Second alarm requested at 2:17 a.m. Controlled at 3:16 a.m. Units on scene: E5, E6, E13, L7, R3, B3, EMS 1 (first alarm), E1, A1, C10, C20, C40, EMS 8, EMS 2, D1, (working fire), E3, E8, E20, L2, R2, B2, EMS 7, M91, T1 (second alarm). We'll see if other details or photos present themselves.
WRAL photo
Of all the pictures why did NBC 17 decide to post that one?
Thank the lord our guy’s know photography lol!
Buckwheat - 06/20/11 - 10:44
Buck, there numerous differences between an image-from-the-news and an image-from-Lee-and-Mike. For starters, the news sites often use still images captured via video recording. They are usually grainer and not as sharp as still-camera images. Next, the position of their camera is often different or very different from what we’ll use. They operate outside a wider perimeter than we do. They also choose their pictures for posting differently than we might. They may have different response times, too. Some times they’re Johnny-on-the-spot, and some times they arrive much later. But that applies to us, as well. Really, apples to oranges.
Legeros - 06/20/11 - 13:37
That’s why and Lee are the MAN! Thanks to you guy’s for capturing the story behind the spin that they will tell you.
Buckwheat - 06/20/11 - 17:57
Well, don’t know how much spin is involved in your run of the mill incident coverage. But the media does operate from a different orientation than, say, your favorite fire photographers. They have their own job to do. And what they say and record about incidents probably isn’t a gross distortion. But I welcome debate on this. Don’t damn. But understand.
Legeros - 06/20/11 - 18:59
When it comes to police-related stories, there usually ARE gross distortions in the media. With EVERY single incident I had personal knowledge of, when I saw it on the news later, they completely made up some facts. Sometimes they were significant “facts”, and sometimes not so significant. But always a distortion.
rfburns - 06/22/11 - 22:06
Burns, there might be a difference (or maybe just a fine line) between “making something up” versus “stating something that is not correct.” The former implies a motivation. The latter is an action absent of motivation. In those instances with distortions of accuracy, did they willfully create those distortions? Or perhaps, and what I suspect is more likely, formed a perspective based on their available information plus assumed information. Of course, I might be splitting hairs here. The end result is still inaccuracy.
Legeros - 06/22/11 - 22:12
Next question, what’s an acceptable “defect rate” in news coverage? Where defects might be measured as inaccuracies. All works of man are flawed. Everything we do isn’t perfect. There are “defects” that happen / get produce in the performance of emergency services. Ditto for media coverage therein. What’s acceptable for inaccuracies in news stories? What’s a big deal versus a little deal? Maybe anecdotes would work here. What are some firsthand stories people can cite, of the effects of inaccuracies in news reporting?
Legeros - 06/22/11 - 22:36