spooje, we only have his word for it that it was a “vague description”. Another poster who is apparently in the same area says it was a fairly detailed description. And even Major admits that a vehicle description was included. Presumably, though he doesn’t say so, some description of the children was included. So he’d know, say, the number and age of children, race and so on, and what kind of car they were in. That could well be enough for someone to spot them and call it in. An alert toll booth attendant, or gas station clerk, or fast-food drive-through employee, etc.
He is NOT right. More than likely, IMO, he just wasn’t interested enough in the first place to pay real attention to the information given. He was just annoyed that his Star Trek episode was interrupted.
According to the info I’ve read (see my links on the last page), there are pretty stringent guidelines on when to issue an Amber Alert. They don’t do it unless they think there’s a pretty good chance that it will be useful (among other criteria).
I didn’t think the sarcasm was directed at me, ya idiot; I was asking you to provide elaboration rather than hiding behind a smilie, which I feel is too often used by semi-literates who are unable to express themselves with actual words.
Perhaps if you actually read my post…
Anyway, I’ll overlook your short attention span and tendency to jump to conlusions. I ask you once more: How is the EAS superior to a photo accompanied crawl?
Ferrous, I’m from the area. They did include the number of children, ages, race, and they gave a good description of the vehicle.
Um, just so Major Kong is aware, those alerts apparently did some good even though they were so “vague” - the SUV with the three kids was last spotted in Oswego - at least that is what was being reported this morning.
I agree with the OP to a point. Last time the Amber alert was used here, the cable did the Civil Defense whonkwhonkwhonk on all channels and said to turn to channel 3. So I did but the only thing there was just the TV Guide channel and I went back to watching.
whonkwhonkwhonk “Turn to channel 3”
TV Guide channel, switch back.
whonkwhonkwhonk “Turn to channel 3”
TV Guide channel, switch back.
whonkwhonkwhonk “Turn to channel 3”
What the hell is the fucking point? I am not turning to channel 3 because you’re not going to give any details!
Just to add to the anecdotes, here in Michigan, Amber Alerts do not break into the broadcast. We use the crawl along the bottom of the screen and the freeway signs. The ones I’ve been aware of have all led to the child being recovered, so I guess the system works pretty well even without breaking into the programming.
And I said, God, please answer me one question
Why’d they have to interrupt Star Trek just for this?
What a drag, 'cause I was taping it and everything,
and now I’ll have to wait for the rerun to see the part of the show I missed.
Why does this always happen?
Why does this always happen to me?
Why does this always happen?
Why does this always happen to me?
Hee. You’ve got it backwards. Once I was watching the coverage of severe thunderstorms racing across my town, full screen, bright orange maps patterned in lightning bolts. The anchor kept saying something along the lines of, “The storm is now crossing the Matthews area. Multiple tornados have been sighted. If you’re watching this broadcast, for Christ’s sake, STOP WATCHING TV AND GET INTO APPROPRIATE SHELTER!”
Bawk.
As for the actual OP, I’m torn between my searing hatred of children (no, I do not wish them all dead, but child abduction is merely symptomatic of a greater and more complex disease that makes me weary) and the riveting clutch of breaking news abductions. For the first 2-3 hours, voyeuristic interest usually wins out.
It’s a really good thing Major Kong started this thread. Looks like a lot of people got to cream their shorts flaming him, making themselves feel important and relevant in the process, and in the end, isn’t that what anonymous insults are all about? Just think, yesterday I Love Me, Vol. I was nothing, nowhere, nobody. Today he’s Jesus Christ, spokesman for rightness and justice and fearless crusader against child abductors. Now he won’t have to hang himself from an I-beam in the abandoned warehouse where he buys his crack. Yay!
If the choice is between an alert that I cannot use and my TV show, I’m going to pick the TV show every time. I certainly am willing to support broadcasting the alerts if they are helping someone do something.
Where I’d start to get cranky is after several alerts that didn’t work. Say, like there was a first alert that contained no information of usefulness (Child abducted, foriegn car), and was later replaced by an alert that was useful (5 yo black child abducted, white honda, suspect is a white man) that led to an identification, should the first TV break-in have happened? NO.
If you make watching TV suck, I will stop watching live TV. Then will the stupid alert be helping?
On another note, I’d like to see the numbers behind the sucess numbers. I remember an analysis of the milk-carton-photos. They run with a tag line like, “57 children recovered since 1988.” Turns out most were recovered entirely without the aid of the photos. Is any child recovered who had an Amber Alert counted as an Amber Alert success?
I don’t think I understand why crimes against children are considered especially terrible. Maybe that’s influencing my judgement. I don’t have the righteous anger that seems to be driving many of the responses here.
Apricot, I’d say nobody knows what kind of fear and anger crimes against children incur until they become parents. It has nothing to do with what kind of person they are, it’s one of those “you-gotta-experience-it-for-yourself” kinda things. A parent automatically imagines their own child in that situation, and I cannot convey the terror it instills.