One report sums up Main Stream Media.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why is it more reasonable?

What is it exactly that you think happened? And why is more reasonable?

The family's house was surrounded by deeper water so they needed the boats to get out and across the street. When they got to shallower waters they didn't get out cause they didn't want to get wetter than they needed to be as perhaps they only had the one set of clothes on them or they would need to be in them for a while. Or perhaps the water was faster moving is some spot making it dangerous or more tricky to walk through.
They come across the reporters who ask if them can take some shots then ask if the lady could get into the boats with them to make it more eyecatching.

It's more reasonable because it doesn't require the assumption that the reporter was dragging around the boats to set up a shot. Or that they tricked the family into going to shallower waters. Or as one poster suggested, where even faking being live.
Nor does my explanation have a gaping hole in it such as the camera man blowing the entire operation by panning back slightly.
Nor does it require an unknown motivation which you've yet to actually provide.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

The family's house was surrounded by deeper water so they needed the boats to get out and across the street. When they got to shallower waters they didn't get out cause they didn't want to get wetter than they needed to be as perhaps they only had the one set of clothes on them or they would need to be in them for a while. Or perhaps the water was faster moving is some spot making it dangerous or more tricky to walk through.
They come across the reporters who ask if them can take some shots then ask if the lady could get into the boats with them to make it more eyecatching.

It's more reasonable because it doesn't require the assumption that the reporter was dragging around the boats to set up a shot. Or that they tricked the family into going to shallower waters. Or as one poster suggested, where even faking being live.
Nor does my explanation have a gaping hole in it such as the camera man blowing the entire operation by panning back slightly.
Nor does it require an unknown motivation which you've yet to actually provide.

Right, so your guesswork is more reasonable even though it comes solely from your own imagination. I mean every single aspect of it. How can I argue with that?

The "motivation" is obvious either - they wanted to/were under pressure to get some sensational shots of the flooding and by the time they got there either a) the flooding had subsided and the water was only a few inches deep or b) to save themselves hassle they filmed in a relatively flood free area and staged it too make it look like the more severely flooded areas in the locality.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right, so your guesswork is more reasonable even though it comes solely from your own imagination. I mean every single aspect of it. How can I argue with that?

No, it's more reasonable because of the reasons I listed.

Please point out the bits that are not reasonable or impossible.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The "motivation" is obvious either - they wanted to/were under pressure to get some sensational shots of the flooding and by the time they got there either a) the flooding had subsided and the water was only a few inches deep or b) to save themselves hassle they filmed in a relatively flood free area and staged it too make it look like the more severely flooded areas in the locality.

How are these explanations more reasonable?
How do you fill in the plot holes?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No, it's more reasonable because of the reasons I listed.

Please point out the bits that are not reasonable or impossible.

What evidence do you have to support you imaginative claim?

My evidence is people sitting in boats in mere inches of water for a news report. Which obviously gives the impression that the water is far deeper than it its.

This is corroborated by the reporters sensational claims that the people in the boats can't cross the street from their house any other way (even though they are sitting in rafts in a few inches of water)

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What evidence do you have to support you imaginative claim?

None, but it's most reasonable explanation that fits all the facts and doesn't have any plots holes.

Again, please point out what about it is unreasonable or impossible.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My evidence is people sitting in boats in mere inches of water for a news report. Which obviously gives the impression that the water is far deeper than it its.

This is corroborated by the reporters sensational claims that the people in the boats can't cross the street from their house any other way (even though they are sitting in rafts in a few inches of water)

So how do you know that their house is not further down the street where the water is deeper and/or more dangerous?

Cause unless you can show this, you don't actually have any evidence.

Further you are making a lot of assumptions about what the report claims and implies considering you've only seen an edited few seconds...