I hate TV weather

Just went for the first picture I could find of her on the station's website. If someone wants to post the part he does watch, feel free

 

Two thoughts:

1) For those pissed that local TV is breaking into your show for a storm that's 50 miles away ... Do you expect them to break into your show when the storm is 50 feet from your house? Local TV doesn't get to sub by editions.

2) For those who say local weather can be done in 20-60 seconds (specifically IJAG's example of what could be said to limit it to 20-30 seconds) ... We can go back and re-read the examples listed here. We can go back and see what again that you wrote the high will be 75. Pay attention to your local weather forecast sometime and take notice of how often they repeat the same info over three minutes. And they have to repeat it because people won't pick everything up the first time through. The station at which I worked for about a year, the weather guy there would repeat himself at least three times (Once at the start of his segment, once in the almanac and once in the five-day outlook).

That said, I think the general almanac info (record highs, lows, etc) is a joke unless the area is nearing a record.

 

Now if they show THAT they can break into my normal programming!

 

My buddy is a weather guy and he started a blog. He used to be a standup comedian before going into TV...so it's a fun read.

http://weatherguyblog.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/im-sorry/

 

I am really into weather and I have my own lil weather station and I track highs and lows and rainfall. I don't care enough, yet, to set up a wind gauge.

Many of us who live in small cities, big cities, or huge cities, get tired of having our house pelted with rain, snow, 100-degree heat, whatever, and at the designated weather station none of that ---- happened. Hence the desire to track weather where we live.

Additionally, yes, the internet can spit back computer readouts of what the temp and dewpoint and humidity are at any location. And, yes, it can show me a radar. But short of the sluggishly updated diagnostic discussions on the NWS, if I want to have any CHANCE of hearing a semi-expert opinion on what the heck is going on with the weather, I have to watch a local newscast.

I often watch the news solely for the weather, and I know and/or predict where in the 30 or 60 minutes the weather will be embedded. I don't have too much use for most of the rest of what they offer.

We're all journalists here, or at least in theory used to be. Let's acknowledge that TV weather does occasionally serve a purpose that nothing else can serve.

 

I'd say you could do the weather in a bump with graphics.
I kind of like being surprised by the weather anyway. So few surprises in life these days.

 

David Epstein, at the Boston Globe, writes a really good weather blog that avoids the hysterics of just about everyone else in New England: http://www.boston.com/news/weather/weather_wisdom/

 

This is why I get my weather info from the NWS at weather.gov. My wife and I went to storm spotter training and we found out from the meteorologist that the street-level doppler radar the news stations love to tout (if you're at Lower Bottom Bitch Drive, the tornado is headed for you!) isn't accurate at all. The path of the tornado that hit Hattiesburg, MS earlier this year was a mile away from the path indicated by radar. The reason is the radar can't see from from about 400 feet AGL (above ground level) to the ground. A circulation can twist and the radar won't be able to see it. Hence that's why spotters are essential.

 

That's true, but if that sucker is even within five miles, I'm taking cover fast.

 

No callers have ever done this.

Ever.