• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

I don't even know what the subject line of this should be

C

ChrisTheListener

Guest
Anybody watch the NBC 5 (Dallas) news last night (at 11pm due to the Olympics)??

At the begining of their news, they had a countdown on the screen. "The countdown to our winter weather watch!"

Unbelievable!! I know that they (as in all four stations here in D, and I'm sure its the same elsewhere in this great state) are always excited about winter weather, and it always dominates the news, but it seems to be much worse this weekend. What's the deal?

Funny thing is, the chance for ice/sleet/snow is not all that promising. I mean, ya it's Texas, but cummon, we get it. It's cold, and there might be some precip. Why are the news stations so OCD about it?

~CTL<P ID="signature">______________
"Welcome to radio-info.com...where we hate everything!!!!! You people are radio's equivalent to the two old guys in the balcony on the Muppet show!"
~FoReal?</P>
 
> Anybody watch the NBC 5 (Dallas) news last night (at 11pm
> due to the Olympics)??
>
> At the begining of their news, they had a countdown on the
> screen. "The countdown to our winter weather watch!"
>
> Unbelievable!! I know that they (as in all four stations
> here in D, and I'm sure its the same elsewhere in this great
> state) are always excited about winter weather, and it
> always dominates the news, but it seems to be much worse
> this weekend. What's the deal?
>
> Funny thing is, the chance for ice/sleet/snow is not all
> that promising. I mean, ya it's Texas, but cummon, we get
> it. It's cold, and there might be some precip. Why are the
> news stations so OCD about it?
>
> ~CTL
>


First things first. 1) If you noticed KXAS backdrop its the Torino Log..another dumbing down of news, KXAS ia NBC O&O. NBC is not doing at all well with it s olympic coverage. Very reminiscent of 1992 when they had that pay per view triple cast and lost their shirts and underwear on it. They finally cut the price and the last 2 days it was free. Ch. 5 has gotten more and more tabloid and win 10p by default due to WFaa's slippage. So Ch.5 embellishes the olympics hoping you stay tune. They embellish the news a lot too. Watch Jane's 'facial expression. Can you say High school drama student?

2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW. WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a speed limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is it possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's truck is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No ballast in those open beds.
So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of reducing accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn watering system on.
Welcome to Texas
 
> 2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW.
> WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a speed
> limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is it
> possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his
> pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's truck
> is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No
> ballast in those open beds.
> So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of reducing
> accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn
> watering system on.
> Welcome to Texas
>


LOL :)

I will point out however, that here in Lubbock, at the begining of every week the weather forcasters tease us about the "the big storm" that will come on the weekend. And every weekend, "our best chance for rain and snow in a long time" turns into 20%, then 10% and then nothing happens, and you start to wonder if they just made the whole thing up. Why do I say this, BECAUSE IT HAPPENS EVERY STINKIN' WEEK!

Take today for example. We were supposed to get snow, then sleet, than it they said freezing drizzle and flurries. Today and into tomorrow were supposed to be our "best chance" (they keep using that line). Now, as I look out my window, I do beieve it is sunny. So the whole thing was a dawg from the get-go... And of course, nobody does a Saturday evening newscast, so we'll have to wait until 10pm for the to explain away this one!
 
> > Anybody watch the NBC 5 (Dallas) news last night (at 11pm
> > due to the Olympics)??
> >
> > At the begining of their news, they had a countdown on the
>
> > screen. "The countdown to our winter weather watch!"
> >
> > Unbelievable!!

Yes, it was absolutely inexcuseable to pull a stunt like that. No other station did that kind of thing. Somewhere Harold Taft is rolling over in his grave.

> to WFaa's slippage. So Ch.5 embellishes the olympics hoping
> you stay tune. They embellish the news a lot too. Watch
> Jane's 'facial expression. Can you say High school drama
> student?

This happens regardless of the Olympics. Despite the fact the Olympics are not doing as well this year as in years past, the network is quite pleased with the results. They promised a 12-14 rating to advertisers and they're delivering just about in the middle of that number. It's still far higher rated than anything else NBC has done in several years.

>
> 2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW.
> WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a speed
> limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is it
> possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his
> pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's truck
> is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No
> ballast in those open beds.
> So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of reducing
> accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn
> watering system on.
> Welcome to Texas
>

Welcome to bigotry. I cannot believe you would post such a stereotypical depiction of Texans as hicks from the sticks. Furthermore, it is not accurate.

Yes, the drivers here can't drive on ice. But you know what, NO ONE can drive well on ice. Snow is one thing, ice is another. Go hang out in Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, etc.. when they get a true ice storm and see how they do. You'll see just as many accidents there as you do here. In fact, you'll see more because they are under the mistaken impression that living in the north gives them special powers to drive on ice.
 
> 2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW.
> > WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a
> speed
> > limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is it
>
> > possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his
> > pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's truck
>
> > is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No
> > ballast in those open beds.
> > So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of
> reducing
> > accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn
> > watering system on.
> > Welcome to Texas
> >
>
> Welcome to bigotry. I cannot believe you would post such a
> stereotypical depiction of Texans as hicks from the sticks.
> Furthermore, it is not accurate.
>
> Yes, the drivers here can't drive on ice. But you know
> what, NO ONE can drive well on ice. Snow is one thing, ice
> is another. Go hang out in Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh,
> Minneapolis, etc.. when they get a true ice storm and see
> how they do. You'll see just as many accidents there as you
> do here. In fact, you'll see more because they are under the
> mistaken impression that living in the north gives them
> special powers to drive on ice.

Hellloo "TESTY" Its called satire mixed with fact. Most weather related accidents in DFW had Pickup trucks involved. Go look at the stats. You are right no one can drive well on ice,but some feel the heavier the truck, makes them invulnerable all the same. Now relax.
>
 
> > 2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW.
> > WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a
> speed
> > limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is it
>
> > possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his
> > pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's truck
>
> > is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No
> > ballast in those open beds.
> > So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of
> reducing
> > accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn
> > watering system on.
> > Welcome to Texas
> >
>
>
> LOL :)
>
> I will point out however, that here in Lubbock, at the
> begining of every week the weather forcasters tease us about
> the "the big storm" that will come on the weekend. And every
> weekend, "our best chance for rain and snow in a long time"
> turns into 20%, then 10% and then nothing happens, and you
> start to wonder if they just made the whole thing up. Why do
> I say this, BECAUSE IT HAPPENS EVERY STINKIN' WEEK!
>
> Take today for example. We were supposed to get snow, then
> sleet, than it they said freezing drizzle and flurries.
> Today and into tomorrow were supposed to be our "best
> chance" (they keep using that line). Now, as I look out my
> window, I do beieve it is sunny. So the whole thing was a
> dawg from the get-go... And of course, nobody does a
> Saturday evening newscast, so we'll have to wait until 10pm
> for the to explain away this one!
>
Samething here. 85% of the time they predict a "winter storm" 5 days in advance , It amounts to an insignificant event. Only the late Harold Taft could predict them right.He once said winter weather in Texas is hard to predict more than 36 hours in advance.
 
> > > Anybody watch the NBC 5 (Dallas) news last night (at
> 11pm
> > > due to the Olympics)??
> > >
> > > At the begining of their news, they had a countdown on
> the
> >
> > > screen. "The countdown to our winter weather watch!"
> > >
> > > Unbelievable!!
>
> Yes, it was absolutely inexcuseable to pull a stunt like
> that. No other station did that kind of thing. Somewhere
> Harold Taft is rolling over in his grave.
>
> > to WFaa's slippage. So Ch.5 embellishes the olympics
> hoping
> > you stay tune. They embellish the news a lot too. Watch
> > Jane's 'facial expression. Can you say High school drama
> > student?
>
> This happens regardless of the Olympics. Despite the fact
> the Olympics are not doing as well this year as in years
> past, the network is quite pleased with the results. They
> promised a 12-14 rating to advertisers and they're
> delivering just about in the middle of that number. It's
> still far higher rated than anything else NBC has done in
> several years.
>
> >
> > 2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW.
> > WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a
> speed
> > limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is it
>
> > possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his
> > pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's truck
>
> > is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No
> > ballast in those open beds.
> > So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of
> reducing
> > accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn
> > watering system on.
> > Welcome to Texas
> >
>
> Welcome to bigotry. I cannot believe you would post such a
> stereotypical depiction of Texans as hicks from the sticks.
> Furthermore, it is not accurate.
>
> Yes, the drivers here can't drive on ice. But you know
> what, NO ONE can drive well on ice. Snow is one thing, ice
> is another. Go hang out in Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburgh,
> Minneapolis, etc.. when they get a true ice storm and see
> how they do. You'll see just as many accidents there as you
> do here. In fact, you'll see more because they are under the
> mistaken impression that living in the north gives them
> special powers to drive on ice.
>
After a particularly vicious storm in Indiana once, saw a snow plow off in the ditch at the side of the road. Sometimes nobody--in Texas or elsewhere-- can drive in such conditions.
 
> > > 2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW.
>
> > > WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a
> > speed
> > > limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is
> it
> >
> > > possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his
> > > pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's
> truck
> >
> > > is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No
>
> > > ballast in those open beds.
> > > So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of
> > reducing
> > > accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn
> > > watering system on.
> > > Welcome to Texas
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL :)
> >
> > I will point out however, that here in Lubbock, at the
> > begining of every week the weather forcasters tease us
> about
> > the "the big storm" that will come on the weekend. And
> every
> > weekend, "our best chance for rain and snow in a long
> time"
> > turns into 20%, then 10% and then nothing happens, and you
>
> > start to wonder if they just made the whole thing up. Why
> do
> > I say this, BECAUSE IT HAPPENS EVERY STINKIN' WEEK!
> >
> > Take today for example. We were supposed to get snow, then
>
> > sleet, than it they said freezing drizzle and flurries.
> > Today and into tomorrow were supposed to be our "best
> > chance" (they keep using that line). Now, as I look out my
>
> > window, I do beieve it is sunny. So the whole thing was a
> > dawg from the get-go... And of course, nobody does a
> > Saturday evening newscast, so we'll have to wait until
> 10pm
> > for the to explain away this one!
> >
> Samething here. 85% of the time they predict a "winter
> storm" 5 days in advance , It amounts to an insignificant
> event. Only the late Harold Taft could predict them right.He
> once said winter weather in Texas is hard to predict more
> than 36 hours in advance.
>
Stations all over north and northeast Texas declared a "winter storm watch." Sure enough, everyone watched and there no winter storm, at least to any appreciable degree.
 
> > > 2) ICE storms big or little are of grave concern in DFW.
>
> > > WHY? The people have no clue how to drive on it. If a
> > speed
> > > limit sign says 65mph they drive 65 mph then ask how is
> it
> >
> > > possible they slid into bubba's truck. Bubba feels his
> > > pickem up truck can do anything. Funny thing bubba's
> truck
> >
> > > is usually shown as the one that went out of control. No
>
> > > ballast in those open beds.
> > > So with that in mind stations cover it in hopes of
> > reducing
> > > accidents,and dummies who leave their computerized lawn
> > > watering system on.
> > > Welcome to Texas
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL :)
> >
> > I will point out however, that here in Lubbock, at the
> > begining of every week the weather forcasters tease us
> about
> > the "the big storm" that will come on the weekend. And
> every
> > weekend, "our best chance for rain and snow in a long
> time"
> > turns into 20%, then 10% and then nothing happens, and you
>
> > start to wonder if they just made the whole thing up. Why
> do
> > I say this, BECAUSE IT HAPPENS EVERY STINKIN' WEEK!
> >
> > Take today for example. We were supposed to get snow, then
>
> > sleet, than it they said freezing drizzle and flurries.
> > Today and into tomorrow were supposed to be our "best
> > chance" (they keep using that line). Now, as I look out my
>
> > window, I do beieve it is sunny. So the whole thing was a
> > dawg from the get-go... And of course, nobody does a
> > Saturday evening newscast, so we'll have to wait until
> 10pm
> > for the to explain away this one!
> >
> Samething here. 85% of the time they predict a "winter
> storm" 5 days in advance , It amounts to an insignificant
> event. Only the late Harold Taft could predict them right.He
> once said winter weather in Texas is hard to predict more
> than 36 hours in advance.
>
But, honestly, I've lived in the Pacific Northwest, New England, Midwest, Texas, and Arizona. No matter where you live, the forecasts are much more aggressive 5 days in advance. It hasn't rained here in Phoenix for 120+ days. Several times, the forecasters have said, "Well, next weekend, a change in the weather pattern is going to occur and we have a decent chance of rain." By the weekend, it's only partly cloudy.

For the mets on this board, are the computer models more aggressive 5-7 days in advance? Or do the mets tend to take the more aggressive forecast model?
 
Ok gang, let me tell you how it works at a TV news operation. I know, I work in one, used to work in North Texas, now in another state. It isn't about keeping you safe or how well you drive or how good/bad the forecast was last time or even the memory of Harold Taft. It is all about one word...starts with an R...no not RATINGS...R E S E A R C H. All of these stations in large and small markets spend huge amounts of money on research. If you are a news director, you'd better have good research or a FOR SALE sign will soon appear in your front lawn. The most important part of research these days is WHO WINS WEATHER! Your station had better do very well in weather because the consultants know the station that wins weather usually wins the ratings in the market. If your station does well in weather, and a ratings book is on, you are going to have a good book. Channel 5 still does vell well in weather in DFW and the other guys are certainly out to get them. Many times the meteorologist or weathercaster doesn't agree with the hype, but many times the news managers just take a storm and go nuts with it because they are afraid of getting beat in the research. I knew a meteorologist (a good one and nice guy) in a Texas market who got fired because he could never beat two powerhouse weather stations in his market in the research. Corporate could care less about anything else, just how are his research numbers? Going up? Good, he gets a new contract... Going down? Ok, well go with someone else.

Now, YOU are the news director... YOU are the chief meteorologist... your high paying job is on the line. What do YOU do when there's a chance of ice or snow or maybe a tornado in a month or so? Do you go "all out" with your station's coverage, knowing in another few months a high paid consultant will come into the market and ask about 600 people which station they watch for weather? Or do YOU sit back and do nothing or just say "we are over hyping this, let's tone down our coverage"....? That's how the TV news game is played.
 
> Ok gang, let me tell you how it works at a TV news
> operation. I know, I work in one, used to work in North
> Texas, now in another state. It isn't about keeping you
> safe or how well you drive or how good/bad the forecast was
> last time or even the memory of Harold Taft. It is all
> about one word...starts with an R...no not RATINGS...R E S E
> A R C H. All of these stations in large and small markets
> spend huge amounts of money on research. If you are a news
> director, you'd better have good research or a FOR SALE sign
> will soon appear in your front lawn. The most important
> part of research these days is WHO WINS WEATHER! Your
> station had better do very well in weather because the
> consultants know the station that wins weather usually wins
> the ratings in the market. If your station does well in
> weather, and a ratings book is on, you are going to have a
> good book. Channel 5 still does vell well in weather in DFW
> and the other guys are certainly out to get them. Many
> times the meteorologist or weathercaster doesn't agree with
> the hype, but many times the news managers just take a storm
> and go nuts with it because they are afraid of getting beat
> in the research. I knew a meteorologist (a good one and
> nice guy) in a Texas market who got fired because he could
> never beat two powerhouse weather stations in his market in
> the research. Corporate could care less about anything
> else, just how are his research numbers? Going up? Good,
> he gets a new contract... Going down? Ok, well go with
> someone else.
>
> Now, YOU are the news director... YOU are the chief
> meteorologist... your high paying job is on the line. What
> do YOU do when there's a chance of ice or snow or maybe a
> tornado in a month or so? Do you go "all out" with your
> station's coverage, knowing in another few months a high
> paid consultant will come into the market and ask about 600
> people which station they watch for weather? Or do YOU sit
> back and do nothing or just say "we are over hyping this,
> let's tone down our coverage"....? That's how the TV news
> game is played.
>
Good points and it illustrates the "dumbing down of weather". However Harold never bowed down to consultants and his weather was the most watched. His was the most accurate as well. 'Nuff said.
 
> >
> Good points and it illustrates the "dumbing down of
> weather". However Harold never bowed down to consultants and
> his weather was the most watched. His was the most accurate
> as well. 'Nuff said.
>

My current station is #1 in weather in my market and our folks are allowed to be as technical as they please. Our research shows we are number 1 in wx because when it gets bad, viewers come to us by the thousands. So weather isn't being "dumbed down" everywhere.

Don't get me wrong, I watched Harold Taft closely for years. I could say many great things about him but I would also say his time was in a different world as far as TV news is concerned. In his day, you had maybe 3 stations seriously doing local news? Things are much different today.
 
> > >
> > Good points and it illustrates the "dumbing down of
> > weather". However Harold never bowed down to consultants
> and
> > his weather was the most watched. His was the most
> accurate
> > as well. 'Nuff said.
> >
>
> My current station is #1 in weather in my market and our
> folks are allowed to be as technical as they please. Our
> research shows we are number 1 in wx because when it gets
> bad, viewers come to us by the thousands. So weather isn't
> being "dumbed down" everywhere.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I watched Harold Taft closely for years.
> I could say many great things about him but I would also
> say his time was in a different world as far as TV news is
> concerned. In his day, you had maybe 3 stations seriously
> doing local news? Things are much different today.
>
Harold did weather into the early 90's -- hardly the early days of TV. He had enough clout to keep his personal standards. He did not produce an "extended" forecast. He would only forecast the weather 48 hours in advance. He read the current conditions off of the weather gauges. On a windy night, it was humorous! "Let's see...the winds are out of the West...at 15..no 22..oh there's a gust up to 31 miles an hour."
 
> > > >
> > > Good points and it illustrates the "dumbing down of
> > > weather". However Harold never bowed down to consultants
>
> > and
> > > his weather was the most watched. His was the most
> > accurate
> > > as well. 'Nuff said.
> > >
> >
> > My current station is #1 in weather in my market and our
> > folks are allowed to be as technical as they please. Our
> > research shows we are number 1 in wx because when it gets
> > bad, viewers come to us by the thousands. So weather
> isn't
> > being "dumbed down" everywhere.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I watched Harold Taft closely for
> years.
> > I could say many great things about him but I would also
> > say his time was in a different world as far as TV news is
>
> > concerned. In his day, you had maybe 3 stations seriously
>
> > doing local news? Things are much different today.
> >
> Harold did weather into the early 90's -- hardly the early
> days of TV. He had enough clout to keep his personal
> standards. He did not produce an "extended" forecast. He
> would only forecast the weather 48 hours in advance. He
> read the current conditions off of the weather gauges. On a
> windy night, it was humorous! "Let's see...the winds are
> out of the West...at 15..no 22..oh there's a gust up to 31
> miles an hour."
>
Today the "new breed" of Station managers, consultants rely too heavily on researchers,who over research, instead of relying on individual know -how and common sense. All too often they miss their mark because they lose focus of the target. Thunderhead's station maybe #1 and that's fine,but it can also be their competition is weak despite their own research. Just because we are in the 21st century doesn't mean a station must be extremely technical. Common sense,experience and know-how wins out a majority of the time. Plus viewers are not that dumb or taken in by smokes and whistles,only advertisers are.
 
In 5's defense, the only story every night that affects everyone is...the weather.

I worked with Harold, and even though he was the best most of us ever saw, he also didn't have the technology available today. Real time satellite imaging, Doppler, and computer models were only dreams. Even so, meteorology is the most capricious of all the sciences. Ultimately, all anyone has to go with is their instinct - whether that applies to the chances of precipitation, chasing a wall cloud, or stacking a newscast. And just watch what happens if a bad ice storm or tornado materializes when none was forecast.

That said, sometimes the saddest part is when dangerous driving conditions don't prevent the anchors and promo writers from getting to work. Bulletin - it's iced up before, and we somehow survived. Armegeddon, it ain't.

And for what it's worth, Ellis County was all but un-navigable this morning. Cost me an interview appointment, too.

Jody

> > > > >
> > > > Good points and it illustrates the "dumbing down of
> > > > weather". However Harold never bowed down to
> consultants
> >
> > > and
> > > > his weather was the most watched. His was the most
> > > accurate
> > > > as well. 'Nuff said.
> > > >
> > >
> > > My current station is #1 in weather in my market and our
>
> > > folks are allowed to be as technical as they please.
> Our
> > > research shows we are number 1 in wx because when it
> gets
> > > bad, viewers come to us by the thousands. So weather
> > isn't
> > > being "dumbed down" everywhere.
> > >
> > > Don't get me wrong, I watched Harold Taft closely for
> > years.
> > > I could say many great things about him but I would
> also
> > > say his time was in a different world as far as TV news
> is
> >
> > > concerned. In his day, you had maybe 3 stations
> seriously
> >
> > > doing local news? Things are much different today.
> > >
> > Harold did weather into the early 90's -- hardly the early
>
> > days of TV. He had enough clout to keep his personal
> > standards. He did not produce an "extended" forecast. He
>
> > would only forecast the weather 48 hours in advance. He
> > read the current conditions off of the weather gauges. On
> a
> > windy night, it was humorous! "Let's see...the winds are
> > out of the West...at 15..no 22..oh there's a gust up to 31
>
> > miles an hour."
> >
> Today the "new breed" of Station managers, consultants rely
> too heavily on researchers,who over research, instead of
> relying on individual know -how and common sense. All too
> often they miss their mark because they lose focus of the
> target. Thunderhead's station maybe #1 and that's fine,but
> it can also be their competition is weak despite their own
> research. Just because we are in the 21st century doesn't
> mean a station must be extremely technical. Common
> sense,experience and know-how wins out a majority of the
> time. Plus viewers are not that dumb or taken in by smokes
> and whistles,only advertisers are.
>
 
How, then, do you explain KCBD being the number 1 newscast for 25 years (more or less) with Chief Meteorologist John Robison being just a little bit more calm than a turtle?


> > Ok gang, let me tell you how it works at a TV news
> > operation. I know, I work in one, used to work in North
> > Texas, now in another state. It isn't about keeping you
> > safe or how well you drive or how good/bad the forecast
> was
> > last time or even the memory of Harold Taft. It is all
> > about one word...starts with an R...no not RATINGS...R E S
> E
> > A R C H. All of these stations in large and small markets
>
> > spend huge amounts of money on research. If you are a
> news
> > director, you'd better have good research or a FOR SALE
> sign
> > will soon appear in your front lawn. The most important
> > part of research these days is WHO WINS WEATHER! Your
> > station had better do very well in weather because the
> > consultants know the station that wins weather usually
> wins
> > the ratings in the market. If your station does well in
> > weather, and a ratings book is on, you are going to have a
>
> > good book. Channel 5 still does vell well in weather in
> DFW
> > and the other guys are certainly out to get them. Many
> > times the meteorologist or weathercaster doesn't agree
> with
> > the hype, but many times the news managers just take a
> storm
> > and go nuts with it because they are afraid of getting
> beat
> > in the research. I knew a meteorologist (a good one and
> > nice guy) in a Texas market who got fired because he could
>
> > never beat two powerhouse weather stations in his market
> in
> > the research. Corporate could care less about anything
> > else, just how are his research numbers? Going up? Good,
>
> > he gets a new contract... Going down? Ok, well go with
> > someone else.
> >
> > Now, YOU are the news director... YOU are the chief
> > meteorologist... your high paying job is on the line.
> What
> > do YOU do when there's a chance of ice or snow or maybe a
> > tornado in a month or so? Do you go "all out" with your
> > station's coverage, knowing in another few months a high
> > paid consultant will come into the market and ask about
> 600
> > people which station they watch for weather? Or do YOU
> sit
> > back and do nothing or just say "we are over hyping this,
> > let's tone down our coverage"....? That's how the TV news
>
> > game is played.
> >
> Good points and it illustrates the "dumbing down of
> weather". However Harold never bowed down to consultants and
> his weather was the most watched. His was the most accurate
> as well. 'Nuff said.
>
 
"WORLD'S GREATEST WEATHERMAN"

> In 5's defense, the only story every night that affects
> everyone is...the weather.
>
> I worked with Harold, and even though he was the best most
> of us ever saw, he also didn't have the technology available
> today. Real time satellite imaging, Doppler, and computer
> models were only dreams. Even so, meteorology is the most
> capricious of all the sciences. Ultimately, all anyone has
> to go with is their instinct - whether that applies to the
> chances of precipitation, chasing a wall cloud, or stacking
> a newscast. And just watch what happens if a bad ice storm
> or tornado materializes when none was forecast.
>
> That said, sometimes the saddest part is when dangerous
> driving conditions don't prevent the anchors and promo
> writers from getting to work. Bulletin - it's iced up
> before, and we somehow survived. Armegeddon, it ain't.
>
> And for what it's worth, Ellis County was all but
> un-navigable this morning. Cost me an interview appointment,
> too.
>
> Jody
Good points Jody,but let's remember something about Harold compared to today'sweather guys.1)He was a military meteorologist and was even part of the weather forecasting team for the D-Day Invasion of Europe. 2) He was a chief meteorologist for Braniff Airlines after the war until the early 1950's. 3)He joined Channel 5 in 1949 and was with them until his death...just shy of 50 years!! 4)He kept every single weather map since his start at channel 5,plus a weather history log which he used in making forecasts and their characteristics.
He used the simple weather map when others switched long before he joined them. true we understand the weather better with doppler,and the GOES satellite systems plus more and more computerized weather reporting stations,BUT when it came to a near perfect Forecast it was Harold hands down! He taught Finfrock,and Chessner,and David carries on Harold's tradition. Bill Mack called him "the world's greatest weatherman"and he was. Harold had modern technology for his time,but whe nit came down to brass tacks,he stuck to what made him a meteorologist,common sense and know-how. Viewers would watch ch.8 for the news and at 10:14p they switched to Ch.5 to watch Harold. Even Troy admitted that.
Smokes and whistles are pretty but Texans want their weather straight,without them.
 
Re: "WORLD'S GREATEST WEATHERMAN"

> > In 5's defense, the only story every night that affects
> > everyone is...the weather.
> >
> > I worked with Harold, and even though he was the best most
>
> > of us ever saw, he also didn't have the technology
> available
> > today. Real time satellite imaging, Doppler, and computer
> > models were only dreams. Even so, meteorology is the most
> > capricious of all the sciences. Ultimately, all anyone has
>
> > to go with is their instinct - whether that applies to the
>
> > chances of precipitation, chasing a wall cloud, or
> stacking
> > a newscast. And just watch what happens if a bad ice storm
>
> > or tornado materializes when none was forecast.
> >
> > That said, sometimes the saddest part is when dangerous
> > driving conditions don't prevent the anchors and promo
> > writers from getting to work. Bulletin - it's iced up
> > before, and we somehow survived. Armegeddon, it ain't.
> >
> > And for what it's worth, Ellis County was all but
> > un-navigable this morning. Cost me an interview
> appointment,
> > too.
> >
> > Jody
> Good points Jody,but let's remember something about Harold
> compared to today'sweather guys.1)He was a military
> meteorologist and was even part of the weather forecasting
> team for the D-Day Invasion of Europe. 2) He was a chief
> meteorologist for Braniff Airlines after the war until the
> early 1950's. 3)He joined Channel 5 in 1949 and was with
> them until his death...just shy of 50 years!! 4)He kept
> every single weather map since his start at channel 5,plus a
> weather history log which he used in making forecasts and
> their characteristics.
> He used the simple weather map when others switched long
> before he joined them. true we understand the weather better
> with doppler,and the GOES satellite systems plus more and
> more computerized weather reporting stations,BUT when it
> came to a near perfect Forecast it was Harold hands down! He
> taught Finfrock,and Chessner,and David carries on Harold's
> tradition. Bill Mack called him "the world's greatest
> weatherman"and he was. Harold had modern technology for his
> time,but whe nit came down to brass tacks,he stuck to what
> made him a meteorologist,common sense and know-how. Viewers
> would watch ch.8 for the news and at 10:14p they switched to
> Ch.5 to watch Harold. Even Troy admitted that.
> Smokes and whistles are pretty but Texans want their weather
> straight,without them.
>
And a lot of those channel switching viewers at 10:14 made the move in pre-remote days when they had to make a trip across the room to rotate the old clicker TV tuners. The changeover took an overt effort, but, as you say, people certainly did it.

A viewer once said Harold Taft could wet his finger and hold it in the air, then tell you more about the weather than all the technological acoutrements ever would.
 
> > > > > >
> Stations all over north and northeast Texas declared a
> "winter storm watch." Sure enough, everyone watched and
> there no winter storm, at least to any appreciable degree.
>

BTW the winter storm watch was issued by the national weather service as were the winter weather advisories that followed all weekend.<P ID="signature">______________
i'm on a mexican radio</P>
 
Re: "WORLD'S GREATEST WEATHERMAN"

> > > In 5's defense, the only story every night that affects
> > > everyone is...the weather.
> > >
> > > I worked with Harold, and even though he was the best
> most
> >
> > > of us ever saw, he also didn't have the technology
> > available
> > > today. Real time satellite imaging, Doppler, and
> computer
> > > models were only dreams. Even so, meteorology is the
> most
> > > capricious of all the sciences. Ultimately, all anyone
> has
> >
> > > to go with is their instinct - whether that applies to
> the
> >
> > > chances of precipitation, chasing a wall cloud, or
> > stacking
> > > a newscast. And just watch what happens if a bad ice
> storm
> >
> > > or tornado materializes when none was forecast.
> > >
> > > That said, sometimes the saddest part is when dangerous
> > > driving conditions don't prevent the anchors and promo
> > > writers from getting to work. Bulletin - it's iced up
> > > before, and we somehow survived. Armegeddon, it ain't.
> > >
> > > And for what it's worth, Ellis County was all but
> > > un-navigable this morning. Cost me an interview
> > appointment,
> > > too.
> > >
> > > Jody
> > Good points Jody,but let's remember something about Harold
>
> > compared to today'sweather guys.1)He was a military
> > meteorologist and was even part of the weather forecasting
>
> > team for the D-Day Invasion of Europe. 2) He was a chief
> > meteorologist for Braniff Airlines after the war until the
>
> > early 1950's. 3)He joined Channel 5 in 1949 and was with
> > them until his death...just shy of 50 years!! 4)He kept
> > every single weather map since his start at channel 5,plus
> a
> > weather history log which he used in making forecasts and
> > their characteristics.
> > He used the simple weather map when others switched long
> > before he joined them. true we understand the weather
> better
> > with doppler,and the GOES satellite systems plus more and
> > more computerized weather reporting stations,BUT when it
> > came to a near perfect Forecast it was Harold hands down!
> He
> > taught Finfrock,and Chessner,and David carries on Harold's
>
> > tradition. Bill Mack called him "the world's greatest
> > weatherman"and he was. Harold had modern technology for
> his
> > time,but whe nit came down to brass tacks,he stuck to what
>
> > made him a meteorologist,common sense and know-how.
> Viewers
> > would watch ch.8 for the news and at 10:14p they switched
> to
> > Ch.5 to watch Harold. Even Troy admitted that.
> > Smokes and whistles are pretty but Texans want their
> weather
> > straight,without them.
> >
> And a lot of those channel switching viewers at 10:14 made
> the move in pre-remote days when they had to make a trip
> across the room to rotate the old clicker TV tuners. The
> changeover took an overt effort, but, as you say, people
> certainly did it.
>
> A viewer once said Harold Taft could wet his finger and hold
> it in the air, then tell you more about the weather than all
> the technological acoutrements ever would.
>
Its really a shame we dont have guys like Harold in the weather business anymore. His intellect about the weather was a true mix of science and instinct. 10% science and 90% gut,thats what made him great. Too bad the "television meterologist" being pumped out of universities today lack the instinct,knowledge and common sense of Harold Taft.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom