|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
UD prof questions TV weather hyperbole
Q: You've been critical of the way the weather is broadcast today. Why? A: Increasingly weather forecasters, particularly the Weather Channel, are broadcasting weather from the standpoint of human peril. They have adopted the local news approach in that weather is not simply weather anymore. Sensational aspects of the weather become the organizing principle for the story. That is not to say that weather does not cause destruction, but the constant use of the language of fear to organize a weather story does not serve the public well. Q: Don't forecasters have an obligation to tell viewers if there is weather-related danger? A: Of course, weather people have the obligation to tell viewers when there is danger. But, that does not mean that every weather occurrence involves human peril. When each weather system is presented as being imminently dangerous to us and “nothing” really happens, then subsequent representations of such danger can go unheeded. Q: What's the harm in weather hyperbole? A: The answer to your question is right in your question. It's hyperbole that's the problem. Weathercasters get so caught up in that approach that the absurdity of it is lost on them. Here is an example from the Weather Channel. I was on my way to Washington, D.C., by train standing in the Amtrak coffee shop with about 10 other patrons. The manager had the TV tuned to the Weather Channel, which was following a tropical storm in New Orleans. The reporter was standing in the wind and the rain. He spent about three minutes telling us that it was raining in New Orleans and that we should stay inside. He "tossed" it back to the anchor who said that was the "latest" from New Orleans. The reaction among the people standing in the coffee shop was unanimous. We looked at each other and just started to laugh. The Weather Channel had just used three minutes of airtime to tell us to stay out of the wind and rain—advice that their reporter had obviously failed to follow. The people in the coffee shop saw it as absurd. In the next report, the Weather Channel projected the storm would move toward the Chesapeake Bay area. They had sent a reporter to Maryland with the bay as a backdrop. He was saying that the waters of the bay were treacherous and likely to become more dangerous as the day wore on. As he was talking, a surfer with a surfboard calmly walked behind him on his way to the water. I say calmly because there was none of the wind that accompanied the New Orleans report, and there was no behavior on the surfer's part to suggest "treacherous" water. He was not leaning into the wind to try to walk, the surfboard was not being battered about, etc. As the surfer crossed the picture, those of us in the coffee shop simply laughed out loud. The reporter, oblivious to the surfer behind him, continued his ominous tones. The net effect of those six to 10 minutes of Weather Channel broadcasting was to render the information that the reporters conveyed as meaningless. Q: Isn't choosing colorful words a weathercaster’s prerogative? A: I'm a great fan of colorful words as long as they are accurate. That's the problem here. I'm reminded of a scene in the movie “Absence of Malice.” Sally Fields plays a reporter in the film, and she is writing a story about Paul Newman whose character might be involved in illegal activities. She does not know that for a fact. The scene involves her and her editor trying to select a word for the story. They were trying to select the “hottest” (most colorful) word that would pass legal muster—that is, not be libelous. They were not trying to find the most accurate word; rather they were trying to find the hottest word they could get away with. That is not colorful. To me, that's simply wrong. To learn how to subscribe to UDaily, click here. |
|
|
