Weather Event Reporting

[AbrahamJSimpson]

I would not quote that generation as a reputable source for anything approaching fine art or relevant information.

And they might well not quote your generation. There is nothing new here about the older generation bellyaching about what those young whippersnappers do. Artistry and relevancy are not fixed points. They evolve with generational and technological shifts. You might not find them relevant; they don't find you relevant. And the dollars are currently on their side.

Those outside the industry tend to be much more critical of its offerings and rightly so. Needless theatrics make the presenter look foolish and do nothing to enhance the story.

Those who have no skin in the game are often quicker to criticize, regardless of the topic. They propose "solutions" that are impractical or undesirable. They rail against something while never having to have made decisions within that sphere that have a direct impact on the lives and livelihoods of those around them. Being more critical doesn't make one more knowledgeable, it merely underscores that they are sometimes a cantankerous codger who decries anything that isn't like it used to be.

 

[TheBigA]

Being more critical doesn't make one more knowledgeable, it merely underscores that they are sometimes a cantankerous codger who decries anything that isn't like it used to be.

And the point is there are lots of options available to this kind of reporting. They just aren't as popular as the ones cited.

What the poster is trying to do is force his personal taste on others.

 

[landtuna]

What the poster is trying to do is force his personal taste on others.

That is not what THIS poster is doing. This poster is merely advocating for reporting to revert to the ways of yesteryear and the type of people who existed to INFORM us rather than ENTERTAIN us. Watching most news today is only slightly more informative than reruns of Laugh-In's "News of the Future".

 

[TheBigA]

That is not what THIS poster is doing. This poster is merely advocating for reporting to revert to the ways of yesteryear and the type of people who existed to INFORM us rather than ENTERTAIN us. Watching most news today is only slightly more informative than reruns of Laugh-In's "News of the Future".

As we've pointed out, the idea if on-scene reporting goes back to the 1940s when reporters such as Edward R. Murrow would broadcast on location during air raids. During Vietnam, reporters would stand in rice patties with helicopters in the background. You consider it "entertainment." They consider it informational. It's a matter of personal taste. As I've said, they're not going to change for you. You either find something else to watch, or shut the TV off.

 

[KeithE4]

That is not what THIS poster is doing. This poster is merely advocating for reporting to revert to the ways of yesteryear and the type of people who existed to INFORM us rather than ENTERTAIN us. Watching most news today is only slightly more informative than reruns of Laugh-In's "News of the Future".

You mean Ye Goode Olden Dayes of distinguished weather-guessers like Dewey Hopper of then-KTAR-TV Phoenix informing us of the current Dewey Point while dressed in a ballet tutu? That visual never leaves one's mind.

Let's face it: The weather segment has been a combination of extreme alarmist and comedy relief as long as there have been local newscasts. Only the technology to make better weather guesses has gotten better. The buffoons have always been with us. Sure there have been semi-serious, mild-mannered people doing weather in just about every market in the country, but the clowns are better-remembered for the most part, and probably got better ratings as well.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Whereas many of today's weathercasters are meteorologists. They study their craft and strive to get it right, just as meteorologists employed in every other organization do. No one complains when they call for a fairly routine 70-and-partly-sunny day and it turns out to be 72 and partly sunny. No....the armchair critics who know little to nothing foam at the mouth when a storm doesn't materialize as anticipated and come up with some ridiculous hyperbole about being wrong almost all the time.

Yes, today's TV reports are simplified for the public, and snazzed up with fancy-schmancy graphics. Welcome to the 21st century. Sometimes they're a little light hearted, sometimes a little intense. There are a range of personalities in all businesses, and each of us can have days when the weight of the world feels like it's on our shoulders, and ones where we feel on top of the world.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

That is not what THIS poster is doing. This poster is merely advocating for reporting to revert to the ways of yesteryear and the type of people who existed to INFORM us rather than ENTERTAIN us. Watching most news today is only slightly more informative than reruns of Laugh-In's "News of the Future".

So "advocating" for a return to yesteryear (seriously?) and some mythical personality prototype because it suits your tastes is somehow different than trying to force tastes on others. Got it. There's a world of difference in there, I'm sure.

You have options that suit your tastes, others have options that suit theirs. That's a good thing. The market will largely determine how it all shakes out.

What would be entertaining, in a somewhat twisted way, is to see just how badly the "return to yesteryear" ideas would crash and burn if implemented--be it commercial TV news or playing 1,500 songs on a classic hits playlist because, dagnabbit, You Light Up My Life was a big het then and deserves to be played now, research be damned.

 

[CTListener]

As we've pointed out, the idea if on-scene reporting goes back to the 1940s when reporters such as Edward R. Murrow would broadcast on location during air raids. During Vietnam, reporters would stand in rice patties

Paddies. Rice patties are tasty but reporters don't stand in, on or next to them unless they're covering a breaking news story at the buffet of an Indian restaurant.

 

[CTListener]

You mean Ye Goode Olden Dayes of distinguished weather-guessers like Dewey Hopper of then-KTAR-TV Phoenix informing us of the current Dewey Point while dressed in a ballet tutu? That visual never leaves one's mind.

Dewey Point, lol. There was a weather guy on Syracuse TV in the '70s named Bud Hedinger who'd tell viewers just how cold it was going to feel the next day with the help of a drawing of a bundled-up fellow named Walter Windchill!

 

[landtuna]

What would be entertaining, in a somewhat twisted way, is to see just how badly the "return to yesteryear" ideas would crash and burn if implemented--be it commercial TV news or playing 1,500 songs on a classic hits playlist because, dagnabbit, You Light Up My Life was a big het then and deserves to be played now, research be damned.

Presenting valid news in a responsible way is world's apart from including a moldy oldie in your playlist. But you already knew that.

 

[landtuna]

You mean Ye Goode Olden Dayes of distinguished weather-guessers like Dewey Hopper of then-KTAR-TV Phoenix informing us of the current Dewey Point while dressed in a ballet tutu? That visual never leaves one's mind.

Let's face it: The weather segment has been a combination of extreme alarmist and comedy relief as long as there have been local newscasts. Only the technology to make better weather guesses has gotten better. The buffoons have always been with us. Sure there have been semi-serious, mild-mannered people doing weather in just about every market in the country, but the clowns are better-remembered for the most part, and probably got better ratings as well.

I played soccer against Hopper and can tell you from first hand experience he was damn serious when he wanted to be. I have no idea what his bosses told him with respect to his on-camera persona but his image was that of a clown. That said, I don't remember him standing outside in a drizzle and claiming it was the end of the Earth as many of his contemporaries are doing.

A good example of weather reporting would be Kim Q. on 3/5. She provides the information injecting just enough personality into it to make it interesting but doesn't go over the top. Her puff pieces are generally separate from her weather or hosting stories which is the way it should be.

None of the above addresses the original subject which was putting your network anchor in the middle of a very strong and dangerous storm to say the obvious (or faking it as the case may be).

 

[davideduardo]

Presenting valid news in a responsible way is world's apart from including a moldy oldie in your playlist. But you already knew that.

The definition of "responsible" is really subjective.

In the case of an anchor in the middle of a dangerous news event, that practice goes back to at least W.W. II with some of the most famous journalists doing live reports from rooftops in London during the blitz.

As to style, there have been changes in what the audience demands and accepts. If we look at other areas for examples, we have "I Love Lucy" which barely showed the bedroom and, then, there were well separated twin beds. Today, suffice it to say that different attitudes prevail.

The same goes for news delivery, writing style and graphics.

Some think that things have gotten worse. Others think the opposite.

 

[gr8oldies]

My memory of Dewey Hopper was from his Dayton days, and "The Weather Outside with Dewey Hopper" which was broadcast from an outdoor weather set at WLW-D, Dayton (at that point in their history they'd do anything to get a leg up on WHIO). After the Xenia tornado, WLW-D/WDTN got more serious and brought in a meteorologist. Gil Whitney (RIP) on WHIO-7 did not get his meteorology degree but went with weather lore features. (It is him you see in videos of the initial reports of the Xenia tornado)

I played soccer against Hopper and can tell you from first hand experience he was damn serious when he wanted to be. I have no idea what his bosses told him with respect to his on-camera persona but his image was that of a clown. That said, I don't remember him standing outside in a drizzle and claiming it was the end of the Earth as many of his contemporaries are doing.

A good example of weather reporting would be Kim Q. on 3/5. She provides the information injecting just enough personality into it to make it interesting but doesn't go over the top. Her puff pieces are generally separate from her weather or hosting stories which is the way it should be.

None of the above addresses the original subject which was putting your network anchor in the middle of a very strong and dangerous storm to say the obvious (or faking it as the case may be).

 

[TheBigA]

None of the above addresses the original subject which was putting your network anchor in the middle of a very strong and dangerous storm to say the obvious (or faking it as the case may be).

And as I said if Edward R. Murrow was OK standing in the middle of London as the Germans dropped bombs around him, and Howard K Smith could stand in the middle of Vietnam as napalm was being used, it seems it's a lot safer standing in the middle of a hurricane to report the weather. They've been doing this kind of thing for 80 years. Longer than you've been alive.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

None of the above addresses the original subject which was putting your network anchor in the middle of a very strong and dangerous storm to say the obvious (or faking it as the case may be).

And what is the issue with anchors being there? Who is it OK to put in the middle of a strong and dangerous storm? Correspondents? Camera and technical crews? Digital teams? Writers? Producers? Who meets the arbitrary definition.

Certainly those people to go to areas at times where the anchors aren't, and are in harm's way. Not everyone can be everywhere. But a storm of that magnitude and predicted damage potential is newsworthy enough to send some of your lead talent.

And let's not pretend were the anchors not there, that there wouldn't be a chorus of ill-informed armchair news directors bellyaching about how the "pampered, empty suits" weren't there with the rest of the grunts doing the actual work, or some such tripe.

 

[landtuna]

The definition of "responsible" is really subjective.

In the case of an anchor in the middle of a dangerous news event, that practice goes back to at least W.W. II with some of the most famous journalists doing live reports from rooftops in London during the blitz.

Reporting a bonafide war story when your closest ally is hanging on by their fingernails might be considered by most a proper and responsible way of news reporting with justifiable risks. I certainly would not think it falls into the contrived and silly weather reporting we recently saw.

 

[landtuna]

And as I said if Edward R. Murrow was OK standing in the middle of London as the Germans dropped bombs around him, and Howard K Smith could stand in the middle of Vietnam as napalm was being used, it seems it's a lot safer standing in the middle of a hurricane to report the weather. They've been doing this kind of thing for 80 years. Longer than you've been alive.

I will give you Murrow as his background was certainly not faked. But I can tell you, because I was there, a number of reporters and celebrities who covered/supported the Vietnam War were nowhere near any napalm. The military and politicians would have gone ballistic had their propagandists been killed or severely injured. There were a few embedded reporters on the ground but, as with Murrow, their backgrounds were not faked either.

 

[landtuna]

And what is the issue with anchors being there? Who is it OK to put in the middle of a strong and dangerous storm? Correspondents? Camera and technical crews? Digital teams? Writers? Producers? Who meets the arbitrary definition.

Certainly those people to go to areas at times where the anchors aren't, and are in harm's way. Not everyone can be everywhere. But a storm of that magnitude and predicted damage potential is newsworthy enough to send some of your lead talent.

And let's not pretend were the anchors not there, that there wouldn't be a chorus of ill-informed armchair news directors bellyaching about how the "pampered, empty suits" weren't there with the rest of the grunts doing the actual work, or some such tripe.

You are, again, completely off subject. The issue wasn't WHO was doing the fake reporting. It was fake reporting itself. The use of the "news face" for the network to headline these reports just made it all worse.

 

[TheBigA]

You are, again, completely off subject. The issue wasn't WHO was doing the fake reporting. It was fake reporting itself. The use of the "news face" for the network to headline these reports just made it all worse.

It's not fake if a reporter stands in the middle of a storm and reports the weather.

their backgrounds were not faked either.

The backgrounds of the weather reporters were not faked. They were in fact standing in the rain. They have no reason to fake the weather.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

You are, again, completely off subject. The issue wasn't WHO was doing the fake reporting. It was fake reporting itself. The use of the "news face" for the network to headline these reports just made it all worse.

Because “the original subject which was putting your network anchor in the middle of a very strong and dangerous storm to say the obvious (or faking it as the case may be)“ clearly indicates it wasn’t about the “who.” Your own words contradict themselves.

And, as noted, there’s nothing fake about the reporting. There was a hurricane. There was flooding. The network anchors reported as much. That is factual. Whether it is done in a way that appeases your tastes is irrelevant.