News tip: How many ‘alarms’ in a fire?
Steve Safran December 8th, 2006
We currently have a “Three Alarm Fire” going in Cambridge. All the channels have lower-thirds describing it as such. Let me ask you all, and be honest: do you know what that means? And if you do, do you think the audience knows what that means? We explain what the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and the Richter Scale are, but not how many companies or pieces of equipment are involved in the number of alarms. It’s not a fixed definition - it varies from city to city. Take the extra step to put it in context for people.
9 Comments Add your own
1. Mike | December 8th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
How about “arraignment?” Or a “preliminary hearing?” The viewers have no idea what those terms mean. Most reporters couldn’t define them. Why do reporters use them in copy?
2. Z | December 8th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
It doesn’t help that every municipality has a different definition.
For example, Toledo had (any may still have) nothing beyond two alarms. The biggest fire I’d seen there, better than four battalions fighting it, was considered “two alarms +”
I think people subconciously know that when you get to two or more alarms, it’s a fairly significant fire. If that’s what you’re trying to get across, I think it works.
Trying to count equipment (and each type thereof–not all are the same…and some additional alarms are manpower only, but you don’t know how many are actually responding) would mean you’d need an entire segment to address that, and it would probably hose the flow of the show.
Just my two pfennig.
3. Safran | December 8th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Z: I’ve done it, and it’s not hard. Often it’s just a matter of asking the fire department in the assignment desk call.
You can also get the info ahead of time - a good intern assignment. The answer will usually be “We tend to ring the second bell when we need more than X pieces.” Even if it’s an approximation, it’s a decent bit of info.
4. Irv Weinstein | December 8th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Steve: a correction. It’s not a “three alarm fire”. It’s a “three bell burner”. And if the emergency crews responding to it were involved in a fatal accident on the way, that would give you a “killer crack-up caused by a three bell burner”.
5. Safran | December 8th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Irv: I appreciate the correction. You are right. To it, I would only add the amplification that “The people died in the FATAL killer-crack-up.”
6. jg | December 8th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
must have been a “desperate battle by [that city's] bravest against the killer blaze in bone-chilling cold.”
must have been.
7. Safran | December 8th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
“…they were still reeling, as they allegedly stood amid the aftermath of three inches of the white stuff.”
According to a nearby motorist and passing pedestrian, anyway.
8. aric | December 10th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
you guys are over thinking this way too much
9. lucy | January 18th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Wow, thanks for the excellent information!
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed