Weather Coverage

[rubberchicken]

An active few days for severe storms in the Memphis area.
A quick scan of coverage this afternoon shows business as usual on many of the FM stations. I heard lots of music while the Tornado Warning was active in Shelby County.

Kudos to 96.1/107.5, I heard them running a complete simulcast of Fox 13, and the meterologist mentioned that a few times. I know many bemoan just potting up a feed from the TV station, but those are the experience meteorologists with the fancy equipment to tell where conditions are the worst. And I'm sure plenty of people on their way home from work this afternoon appreciated that coverage to keep them informed. Good job, Q!

 

[tomservo]

Yeah, I never understood the disdain for the TV audio simulcast. Am I going to trust a minimum wage board op with critical info, or a seasoned weather person? Tough choice. :

Y'know, I grew up in Birmingham where wall-to-wall weather coverage on TV during tornado warnings was a regular occurrence. So maybe my thirst for non-stop weather blather is stronger than other people's. I dunno.

It seems that for every person who is glued to the radio simulcast or the TV during bad weather events, there's one more who just wishes they'd shut the hell up and put House and Ryan Seacrest back on, lol.

I've seen the complaints the weather people get for breaking into coverage. Maybe that (plus cost) keeps radio from being in the game.

 

[crainbebo]

Watched WREG 3 here in Seattle, online simulcast. JIm Jaggers and I think Tim Simpson were on, doing a pretty good job. Couldn't believe how many tornado warnings were going up, about one every 10 min. it seems!

-crainbebo

 

[jharmon]

Weather alerts on my I-phone from The Weather Channel.
Great coverage of all the storms in Alabama.

 

[robgrayson]

I am tickled that radio stations are simulcasting TV weather coverage, since power outage + old battery powered analog portable TV = useless (unless you want to hear the Pig or whatever they're doing on 87.7). However, I do miss live radio coverage and interaction from crisis situations in the past (ice storms, hurricane Elvis, etc.).

 

[firepoint525]

Yeah, I never understood the disdain for the TV audio simulcast. Am I going to trust a minimum wage board op with critical info, or a seasoned weather person? Tough choice. :

Yeah, it's a no-brainer when you're in a TV market, and the TV stations often have partnerships with radio stations for just that very purpose.

I live just west of Nashville, and I heard radio coverage of the Kentucky storms on the Clarksville and Hopkinsville stations. I didn't listen to it all that closely because it didn't pertain to me, but from what I could tell, they did a very good job on storm coverage there, especially since they don't have a major-network TV station there that they could tap right into. Sure, some coverage here on the Nashville stations, and probably Paducah and Evansville, too, but since the Clarksville-Hopkinsville market doesn't have their own TV station (that I'm aware of, anyway), they must generate their own coverage. And they bumped Billy Bush on one station, and Delilah on the other, so no major loss there, only syndicated programming.

 

[robgrayson]

Now, from the TV side, what I would like to see is for them to move the network programming they are pre-empting to another of their digital channels (lid the one with weather information), so if we are missing a prime time show because of a severe thunderstorm warning in the bootheel of MO going way to the north of us, we could flip to the other channel.

 

[firepoint525]

Now, from the TV side, what I would like to see is for them to move the network programming they are pre-empting to another of their digital channels (lid the one with weather information), so if we are missing a prime time show because of a severe thunderstorm warning in the bootheel of MO going way to the north of us, we could flip to the other channel.

I believe the better option would be to move the weather warning to the subchannel. Channel 5 here in Nashville did that during March madness a couple of years ago, with crawls on the screen on the main channel.

However, last night, they continued weather coverage after their normal news time was over, and put CBS evening news on the subchannel.

 

[MemBirdman]

Now, from the TV side, what I would like to see is for them to move the network programming they are pre-empting to another of their digital channels (lid the one with weather information), so if we are missing a prime time show because of a severe thunderstorm warning in the bootheel of MO going way to the north of us, we could flip to the other channel.

I believe the better option would be to move the weather warning to the subchannel. Channel 5 here in Nashville did that during March madness a couple of years ago, with crawls on the screen on the main channel.

However, last night, they continued weather coverage after their normal news time was over, and put CBS evening news on the subchannel.

If you did that, you wouldn't necessarily get the info to everyone. There are some of us who can't afford digital cable, so the only stations that get picked up are the primary ones.

 

[firepoint525]

Now, from the TV side, what I would like to see is for them to move the network programming they are pre-empting to another of their digital channels (lid the one with weather information), so if we are missing a prime time show because of a severe thunderstorm warning in the bootheel of MO going way to the north of us, we could flip to the other channel.

I believe the better option would be to move the weather warning to the subchannel. Channel 5 here in Nashville did that during March madness a couple of years ago, with crawls on the screen on the main channel.
However, last night, they continued weather coverage after their normal news time was over, and put CBS evening news on the subchannel.

If you did that, you wouldn't necessarily get the info to everyone. There are some of us who can't afford digital cable, so the only stations that get picked up are the primary ones.

I don't have cable, but I have digital TV (obviously). At the time channel 5 did that during March madness, the channel on which they put their weather information was indeed cable only. Because of that, I wrote to them, asking them to make that channel a subchannel, thus available to all of us. Not long after that, they did.

 

[MemBirdman]

Now, from the TV side, what I would like to see is for them to move the network programming they are pre-empting to another of their digital channels (lid the one with weather information), so if we are missing a prime time show because of a severe thunderstorm warning in the bootheel of MO going way to the north of us, we could flip to the other channel.

I believe the better option would be to move the weather warning to the subchannel. Channel 5 here in Nashville did that during March madness a couple of years ago, with crawls on the screen on the main channel.
However, last night, they continued weather coverage after their normal news time was over, and put CBS evening news on the subchannel.

If you did that, you wouldn't necessarily get the info to everyone. There are some of us who can't afford digital cable, so the only stations that get picked up are the primary ones.

I don't have cable, but I have digital TV (obviously). At the time channel 5 did that during March madness, the channel on which they put their weather information was indeed cable only. Because of that, I wrote to them, asking them to make that channel a subchannel, thus available to all of us. Not long after that, they did.

Not all of us. All we had (have) are the basic channels.

 

[firepoint525]

That's all I have. Where do you live? All I have is an antenna out on the roof of my house.

 

[Bat Fastard]

Yeah, I never understood the disdain for the TV audio simulcast. Am I going to trust a minimum wage board op with critical info, or a seasoned weather person? Tough choice. :

O.K., I'll play the devil's advocate here. Why do I object to radio doing T.V. simulcasts? First, I don't...if that's all you've got. I would much rather a station do that than ignore the situation and continue merrily on with their (usually) syndicated programming, which absolutely ensures that the listeners WILL NOT get ANY local information at times when it can be critical.

My objection lies in that radio has given up one it's most-trusted perceptions to T.V. When we, as radio people, essentially tell the public that T.V. is better than we are at disseminating information, T.V. wins the war without firing a shot. And besides, some T.V. stations are NOT better than radio in that task.

One more consideration: while watching the exceptionally great coverage of the Alabama tornadoes on the Weather Channel, it struck me that they are accomplishing what Satellite Radio has been unable (or unwilling) to do: provide accurate, timely and LOCAL information of a critical nature. Previously, radio had the corner on that angle. Apparently, no longer.

I understand the value of a T.V. partnership and see clearly where such an arrangement CAN be a positive for all parties concerned. I just remember when radio didn't need such an arrangement and done properly, they still DON'T need it.

The problem, as we all know, comes in the fact that very few stations are properly staffed with an adequate number of people who are professional enough to do what was once expected of all of us as radio broadcasters. Is that the fault of the professional broadcaster? Clearly, the answer is "no" since very few of us have anything to do with station ownership...or direction.

Once again, our product suffers and our industry is hamstrung as a direct result of ownership that operates under the worst financial conditions imaginable...and I'm not talking about the economy.

 

[MemBirdman]

That's all I have. Where do you live? All I have is an antenna out on the roof of my house.

Comcast analog basic cable package.

 

[firepoint525]

That's all I have. Where do you live? All I have is an antenna out on the roof of my house.

Comcast analog basic cable package.

Wow, that's more than I have! At any rate, Nashville's Newschannel 5 plus station, as it is known, was once only available on cable. As I mentioned before, I wrote to them, asking them to also make it a subchannel, once we all went to digital TV, since they were using that extra channel as a weather outlet when they couldn't cover weather on the main channel. No complaint about them doing that; I just wanted them to make it available to everyone. And they did.

Seems like you have the opposite problem, your subchannels are not available on cable, at least not on basic cable. If your local TV stations use their subchannels as outlets for severe weather information, then you have a case for writing to Comcast and asking them to include those subchannels in the basic package.

 

[spin003]

That's all I have. Where do you live? All I have is an antenna out on the roof of my house.

As a DirecTV subscriber since 1998, I've always had an "in the attic"-mounted aerial antenna. Originally, it was because satellite tv providers did not carry local stations, but it was always for "guaranteed" reception during "weather events", because heavy cloud cover or driving rain can destroy satellite reception.

Even after they added "local channels", I've always managed to have at least one more tv than satellite box, so a coax drop to a bedroom or kitchen gave me coverage.

Then, when the guv'mint mandated "analog-to-digital" cutover took place, I went and got my digital converters with my guv'mint-issued $40 rebate cards. They are still in service in those rooms where there ain't no satellite receivers.

So, during these storms, when I saw nothing but "Searching for Satellite..." on my wide-screen tv, I was able to go in the kitchen and watch the wall-to-wall coverage using the OTA signal on my 19" tube-TV.

I do wish there were an analog audio-only signal provided for those of us who still have "TV-tunable" radios. Oh yeah, that's what the existing radio stations are....

So, when you're out on the road, maybe coming home from work, and you're not sure what the weather is doing, just use your "digital-to-analog" converter attached to the TV in your car, and you'll be up-to-date, because the local radio stations aren't worth diddly-poo when it comes to storm coverage.

What good is a simulcast of WMC-TV on WREC-AM 600 in a storm? Any of you ever try to listen to an AM signal with lightning popping all around?

So, the gist of this diatribe is this: no self-respecting FM radio station can say they are "serving the public good" if they aren't providing local news, weather, and information in a timely fashion. Put that in your FCC file and smoke it....

I know Mike Fleming would have pre-empted his show with storm coverage if he were on the air this past week. He did it many times before during previous storm outbreaks.

 

[tomservo]

My objection lies in that radio has given up one it's most-trusted perceptions to T.V. When we, as radio people, essentially tell the public that T.V. is better than we are at disseminating information, T.V. wins the war without firing a shot. And besides, some T.V. stations are NOT better than radio in that task.

I disagree. The visual aspect of news, weather and sports coverage on television versus the audio-only theater of the mind of radio is a big advantage TV has. So it becomes the de facto choice even if the quality is worse than what some of our finer stations have given us in the past.

People don't want to hear about what's happening in a storm, they want to see it on radar and possibly on webcams or other methods.

One more consideration: while watching the exceptionally great coverage of the Alabama tornadoes on the Weather Channel, it struck me that they are accomplishing what Satellite Radio has been unable (or unwilling) to do: provide accurate, timely and LOCAL information of a critical nature. Previously, radio had the corner on that angle. Apparently, no longer.

I regret now not checking on TWC for their perspective on this. I know during the '98 and '08 tornado outbreaks they were the last place to go for information because it was all generalities and misinformation. I don't trust a "personality" in Atlanta to tell me what's happening in an emergency in Peoria or Pittsburgh. They can send reporters into the field but even then they don't know any more about the local area than I do the moon's backside.

During the immediate aftermath I DID check out TWC and kept hearing verbal gaffes and outright wrong information about the communities I know best. So I quit watching.

 

[tomservo]

So, when you're out on the road, maybe coming home from work, and you're not sure what the weather is doing, just use your "digital-to-analog" converter attached to the TV in your car, and you'll be up-to-date, because the local radio stations aren't worth diddly-poo when it comes to storm coverage.

I wish it worked, but there's nowhere for those analog audio simulcasts to go, and digital mobile reception just stinks from what I've read.

 

[firepoint525]

What good is a simulcast of WMC-TV on WREC-AM 600 in a storm? Any of you ever try to listen to an AM signal with lightning popping all around?

It's also no fun working for an AM station during such a storm, for much the same reason. And because of all the static and noise, we had to cut the power back anyway. :