... Does something need to be an abject disaster in order to be newsworthy? This is so strange to me as a position.
In case you were asking this in good faith: Yeah, it is, for a buncha reasons. I'll theorycraft a few from my uneducated position:
1) There was a public mass email sent out, but followup wasn't forthcoming, so people might want to know what happened. People often turn to the news for this function.
b) There was grid failure that resulted in deaths because it got too cold out a while back, so people might want to know if it's likely to happen again, once more making the news about the conditions involved relevant, because it wasn't too cold this time.
iii) Some people rely on electricity to stay alive in a very-direct, medical sense, and might be so interested enough in the power grid's disposition to be concerned if someone at ERCOT farts out of turn.
Also, yes, the news routinely reports on things that almost happened. I don't even own cable TV and I know that.
In case you were asking this in good faith: Yeah, it is, for a buncha reasons. I'll theorycraft a few from my uneducated position:
1) There was a public mass email sent out, but followup wasn't forthcoming, so people might want to know what happened. People often turn to the news for this function.
b) There was grid failure that resulted in deaths because it got too cold out a while back, so people might want to know if it's likely to happen again, once more making the news about the conditions involved relevant, because it wasn't too cold this time.
iii) Some people rely on electricity to stay alive in a very-direct, medical sense, and might be so interested enough in the power grid's disposition to be concerned if someone at ERCOT farts out of turn.
Also, yes, the news routinely reports on things that almost happened. I don't even own cable TV and I know that.