As I've commented at length just now, this is an excellent set of visualisations of the damage, and history, of this story. It exceeds all media coverage I've seen of the event (though I've not canvassed all of that coverage).
I'd like to also present Wikipedia's article on the Oroville Dam Spillway Crisis of 2017, which is another example of exemplary coverage, and what's been a consistent model for me for vastly better coverage of ongoing large-scale events since the Boxing Day Earthquake and Tsunami of 2004, the first time I'd followed a major story by way of Wikipedia:
In roughly 25 paragraphs, plus an SVG image essay showing the progression of the damage, apparently original work by a Wikipedia editor, this spells out the background, event, development, implications, and history of the failure.
Both the Imgur essay and the Wikpedia article are vastly more informative than any news coverage I've seen. In the case of Wikipedia, much of that comes from its ability to synthesize information from multiple sources and place it in a coherent context. But in both cases, much of the value also comes from a focus on what I see as the salient factors, and an avoidance of fluff.
Taking a quick second look at the Wikipedia page, the one fault I'd give it is that for someone immediately affected by evacuation orders, there is insufficient information about what routes were recommended or deprecated. For that, some local news accounts (I'd read the Sacramento Bee and SF Chronicle's coverage in particular) was perhaps more useful, but only just.
I'd put hard to the press just what they see their mission as in reporting on such events. Because, much as I appreciate the media, they fell down here.
Addendum: Brad Plumer, at Vox, has previously caught my attention as an exceptionally good reporter. His article explaining the Oroville Dam crisis is cited by Wikipedia, and is itself also excellent. I'm calling it out specifically as an example of How to Do Coverage Right:
I'd like to also present Wikipedia's article on the Oroville Dam Spillway Crisis of 2017, which is another example of exemplary coverage, and what's been a consistent model for me for vastly better coverage of ongoing large-scale events since the Boxing Day Earthquake and Tsunami of 2004, the first time I'd followed a major story by way of Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oroville_Dam_crisis
In roughly 25 paragraphs, plus an SVG image essay showing the progression of the damage, apparently original work by a Wikipedia editor, this spells out the background, event, development, implications, and history of the failure.
Both the Imgur essay and the Wikpedia article are vastly more informative than any news coverage I've seen. In the case of Wikipedia, much of that comes from its ability to synthesize information from multiple sources and place it in a coherent context. But in both cases, much of the value also comes from a focus on what I see as the salient factors, and an avoidance of fluff.
Taking a quick second look at the Wikipedia page, the one fault I'd give it is that for someone immediately affected by evacuation orders, there is insufficient information about what routes were recommended or deprecated. For that, some local news accounts (I'd read the Sacramento Bee and SF Chronicle's coverage in particular) was perhaps more useful, but only just.
I'd put hard to the press just what they see their mission as in reporting on such events. Because, much as I appreciate the media, they fell down here.
Addendum: Brad Plumer, at Vox, has previously caught my attention as an exceptionally good reporter. His article explaining the Oroville Dam crisis is cited by Wikipedia, and is itself also excellent. I'm calling it out specifically as an example of How to Do Coverage Right:
http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/2/13/14598042/oro...