Number 32, February 2002

Correspondence

We encourage your correspondence, and although we cannot print all that we receive, we will include at least one short, perhaps edited, letter per issue.

Re: The Need For Probabilistic Forecasting, December 2001, WeatherZine Student Editorial

Dear WeatherZine,

As a broadcast meteorologist with 30+ years of experience in one of the top active weather markets, I wish to share a few insights with you. Yes, some indicator of forecast probability is desired, but it seems such notions have always confused those receiving the message. More importantly, weather forecasts promulgated by the broadcast media have been subjected to increased “showboating” by various outlets and individuals. This is where much of the blame lies, and I question whether it can ever be negated.

Those who have watched or listened to many newscasts soon come away from the barrage of advertisements, promotions, and hyperbole with the equivalent of information “shell shock”. It’s all for the bottom line, higher ratings, job security, and bragging rights. Flurries? They don’t light up screens. Double super Doppler and doom and gloom do. And so does inexperience or ineptness.

Weathercasters, announcers, even the minority of true meteorologists who deliver weather information often enable the feeding frenzy. It’s particularly evident in younger broadcasters who lack forecasting experience or clout in the newsroom. If blood (or even the chance of it) is in the water, watch out. Producers, writers, anchors, and promotion people will gobble the young. Few can make a stand against this onslaught. And forget about any stance from those unwise in the ways of weather. Unfortunately, there are quite a few of them delivering the message from newsrooms across America. And look at the clowns who dominate national venues!

In the business, they’re called “cookie cutter” talent, and you are seeing plenty of them passing through revolving doors at many stations. Hell, they even move in front of and point at their graphics in the same way. They’re the Stepford Wives of Weather and when one cries wolf, they ALL do. That’s what led to the ludicrous March event that you describe. Few have the guts or the wherewithal to tell it like it is. And the beat goes on with a wink from the FCC while viewers flee the mayhem. Audiences have shrunk to half of what they were 10 years ago for this and other reasons.

Years ago, broadcasters had to comply with community standards and service as prescribed by the FCC. If not, they could lose their license for misuse of the public’s airwaves. Today’s toothless regulators demand little and encourage mediocrity. You can light up a channel with just about anything and piggyback numerous commercials to fatten the bottom line with little or no challenge. Companies can also merge the quality beast to death by controlling multiple stations, even in the same market. Competition rewarding us with the best? Not anymore.

Sure, we all miss calls due to minute variations of one parameter or another, one model or another. But I submit that the message and the messengers are where much of the problem lies. As one of the few who disputed what the March storm would bring and received the highest ratings while doing so, I suggest that quality can win. Unfortunately, the powers that be are dragging it down to the lowest common denominator.

Bruce Schwoegler, Chairman
MySky Communications, Inc.
bruce@mysky.com