Sandy news has travelled far and wide. I say so because of the difference between the number of calls I received during Sandy and Katrina.
Those of you were fortunate enough to not be in the path of either of these, did you hear more about Katrina than about Sandy during their impact and the following couple of days?
I am also interesting in hearing from those FTers who live in countries other then the U.S.

I heard from not just family, but also friends from around the world asking me if I was OK after Sandy, but very few calls after Katrina, although Katrina was very devastating for me and Sandy was a non-event.
It seems things have changed a lot in 6-7 years.

I would imagine that the reason Sandy is getting more attention is due to all the social networking tools that are available today.

Yeah. There are other reasons too. Internet penetration has increased. Many countries, that had only one or two channels, have many more "news" channels. People are constantly bombarded with the same news while channel surfing.

I think also Sandy is getting more attention BECAUSE of Katrina. Presumable your friends and family know how bad Katrina was for you and now they want to make sure you are ok after Sandy.

I used to live in VA, and although my old area did pretty well this time, I was still nervous for my friends there - it only takes one tree.

Of course, for news outlets in Europe, it would probably always be more of a story hitting NYC than "somewhere down south", but that might just be me being cynical...

DanishFlyer

My area was a common landing spot for Katrina evacuees and out 'local' tv channels cover as far as the Mississippi Gulf Coast, so there's no question there in terms of Katrina being more prominent in everyone's mind in these parts.

I think that's a huge factor. It impacted the whole east coast, thus disrupting global financial markets, a large chunk of TATL travel, and the entire stream of U.S. election news coverage which would otherwise be prominent on most major global news outlets. (So I guess I'd call it 80% location with a 20% timing bonus thrown in due to the election.)

A gulf coast storm doesn't have that kind of effect on the rest of the world. Perhaps some temporary distortions to energy or commodity prices.

Similarly, here in the U.S., when a volcano erupts in Iceland, nobody in America cares unless you're a geology nerd. But when a volcano erupts in Iceland and jacks up worldwide travel for a few days, it's the lead story on most of our news outlets.

I really can't remember what the coverage of Katrina was like here in the UK but Sandy has been headline news here for the last few days!

I would tend to agree with pinniped that the location (NYC) has been key; the focus here has been mainly on disruption to travel, the stock market and tourists which would suggest to me that because it has directly impacted a large number of British people and the markets in general its been a bigger story for our media!

Although I'm sure Katrina was equally devastating, if not worse, the fact that it hit the East coast seems to have meant more media coverage in general.

Comparing devastation can be a bit misleading as the hurricane that impacted you personally would be more devastating to you. It might make some to feel that their suffering is being ignored.
Katrina flew over FL as category one, strengthened to category 5 as it moved across the Gulf of Mexico and wakened to category 3 before making landfall. Sandy hovered between tropical storm and category 1 hurricane. East coast is populated more densely and real estate is more expensive here. Monetary damage due to Sandy might exceed that by Katrina.

I'm in Texas, but I have lots of friends and family in both NYC and New Orleans.

In terms of coverage, post-storm, I think Katrina was the bigger story.

With Sandy, the networks broadcast their regular programs during prime time both that night (Monday) and the next. The cable news channels have been mostly on that story, but (perhaps due to the election next week) are already covering some other stories intermittently. And I think that's about right. The death toll was in the dozens; people right by the shore and on barrier islands have lost homes, for everyone else affected, it's a lot of inconvenience and unpleasantness living w/o power & water, but in a couple of weeks, life will have returned to normal.

With Katrina, the death toll was in the thousands. A major US city (500K+) was evacuated. And the ongoing horrific images from the Superdome and Convention Center, people dying in the streets, kept coming, as it took 4 days before the government was able to get those who had stayed evacuated. If I recall correctly, the networks had 24x7 coverage for 4 days.

With all due respect, Katrina caused more devastation it can be argued and more lost lives, but closing Gulfport-Biloxi airport and MSY and Mobile? does not have the knock on effect around the world that closing EWR/JFK/LGA does and other such as PHL affected too. This factor has to be important especially as we are on a FLYER forum. All due respect - no disrespect meant.

My students (high school in Denmark) were .....ing yesterday about some US tv show being postponed until next week due to Sandy. I'll admit to looking at them like they were idiots and pleading for a little compassion.

We're getting really only weather and election related news from the US right now here in DK. But then, those are the two big things right now.

DanishFlyer

I agree that social media as well as Katrina have led to big differences in reaction compared to Katrina.

One other thing worth mentioning: Like Sandy, Katrina made landfall on a Monday. But the real conditions in the state didn't become huge news until late Tuesday/early Wednesday. The Superdome wasn't fully evacuated until Sunday. So at this point in the Katrina story, the magnitude of the problem was just becoming known.

I seem to recall Katrina getting a lot of attention. I certainly followed the story round the clock when it was happening. I can't compare, but I did follow Sandy for a few days. Katrina was the bigger story to me. None of what I'm hearing about Sandy hits me as hard as what I heard about the disaster in New Orleans. Sandy was slightly over-hyped, Katrina was not. Just my view.

I live in the UK, and I don't remember hearing much about Katrina before it actually hit, but after the devastation became apparent, it was all over the news over here.

I heard more about the preparation for Sandy than I did for Katrina, and I've noticed more talk about it online. From my perspective as someone on the other side of the world, they both sound like scary events.

That's a misconception and it can be blamed on media. Death toll was definitely much higher in New Orleans. The news of the hurricane did not become huge until New Orleans disaster was publicised. Devastation on the gulf coast of Louisiana and Mississippi had already occurred on Monday.
The fault lies squarely with media that many people still don't know about the scale of devastation or when it occurred. Networks race with each other to chase the same story. Consequently truth is buried.
New Orleans problems were caused by flooding sue to levies breaking, which happened after the hurricane. The Gulf Coast was destroyed as hurricane was pounding the coast.