Media Portrayal of Severe Weather

[Chris Vagasky]

I'm talking about how local television markets/meteorologists discuss (potential) severe weather events during their newscasts.

Although I am in Oklahoma, and am affiliated with the OKC market, I pay close attention to the market I grew up in - Detroit.

I have been battling frustration for years with the way the meteorologists discuss upcoming severe weather potential, but tonight probably had me frustrated most of all.

With a Day 2 Moderate Risk out, and DTX and GRR talking about the potential of an outbreak, the following quotes that I picked up from two of the three Detroit stations just don't cut it.

Station 1: Some active weather tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow night with some gusty winds.

Station 2: Some strong thunderstorms with the potential for gusty winds and some hail.

It's almost as if "severe weather" is a dirty word up there. Certainly, having only 1-2 minutes in the newscast for main weather (which is what I've seen in the Detroit market) doesn't help matters, but if there is a threat of significant severe weather for the area, I'm fighting that news director for extra time to discuss the potential event.

Maybe Rob Dale and some of the other Michigan contingent can pipe in on this, as well.

One of these days, a big event is going to happen in Southern Michigan, and there will be significant damage and lives lost (remember July 2, 1997?)...and if we only talk about 'strong thunderstorms' or 'active weather' ...we don't have the public prepared.

 

[rdale]

I think that's highly connected more to the market size issue than the location. Take a guess at how many Detroit TV mets are active in NWSChat?

Stop guessing. Zero.

For whatever reason (other than in tornado states) larger cities just don't care. The on-air personalities get a boatload of money to be on TV, and that's all the viewers want. Someone on TV they like to watch. Forecasting ability is not at all a concern.

I've never been able to identify with that, but it's common. Up until just a few years ago Chicago stations never did much coverage. Philly - nada. NYC - nothing.

I watch Indianapolis TV stations regularly during their sevwx coverage - and some of the things they say on-air are just stupid (if not dangerously stupid.) It was like that when I lived in the area at Purdue, and it's still that way today.

Until viewers get up and tell TV management "we want severe weather experts" it won't change. And viewers aren't going to do that. They want someone they like watching - end of story.

 

[James Gustina]

rdale you are dead on. Outside of tornado alley very few TV stations actually offer any "good" predictions or coverage in general. It's awful with both OH and IN stations. Was watching the local news during a tornado warning last week...seems to me they don't quite understand how to interpret storm relative velocity. They also didn't even cover the fact that severe thunderstorms were possible that day.

It's quite sad but the only way it'll really change I think is if news stations bungle on a significant severe weather event and as you said dale, the viewers will have to demand change.

 

[Adam Lucio]

Chicago does very little coverage other than Tom Skilling.

As a matter of fact my gf was watching channel 3 and I listened just for S&Gs [sh*ts and giggles] and all he said was "heavy rain with some gusty boomers" lol all people around here care about are the stupid Cubs.

 

[Jason Foster]

Well, the DC market and Baltimore have great coverage, are not afraid to pre-empt when necessary and have a pretty good understanding of forecasting and severe weather. All (I believe) are degree meteorologist.

Howard Bernstein is from OKC, growing up there. He has chased
Scott Broom (not a wx-caster) chases
Kim Martucci chased a season or two with some chasers

TV mets have a large amount of other things to deal with on a daily basis and forecasting is only part of that. Working up graphics, writing scripts, coordinating with the news team, dealing with endless amount of calls (and now FB and Twitter message about "what's gonna happen IMBY".

Lastly, the DC market is supportive of Chasers, and often has show many of your guys videos (for those that sold to the networks for national distribution). I suspect more markets are supportive than not. I'd be surprised in fact if any belittle chasers.

 

[Kris Hair]

I think there is a fine line in making the public aware, and causing widespread panic about a system that could or could not affect you on that particular day. I understand there shoud be an obligation to protect human life. But if you scream, "ARMAGEDDON" every time a system comes through, how many people are going to heed that warning after 3 or 4 times of saying, "the end is near"?

 

[Robert Dewey]

Station 1: Some active weather tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow night with some gusty winds.

Station 2: Some strong thunderstorms with the potential for gusty winds and some hail.

The stations up here are pretty ridiculous, to say the least. As a matter of fact, TWC has better coverage. FWIW, the radio stations aren't much better. WWJ contracts out to AccuWeather, and they NEVER use the word "severe" unless they are specifically referring to a watch/warning product. Instead, they'll say "a couple of gusty showers or storms possible."

 

[rdale]

But if you scream, "ARMAGEDDON" every time a system comes through, how many people are going to heed that warning after 3 or 4 times of saying, "the end is near"?

I'm not sure that is what anyone is talking about (in this thread at least.)

Today's setup is NOT the kind we get for every system that comes through. It's very rare for Michigan actually.

Tornado Warnings get brief cut-ins (if that) on major market stations. Many of the TV weathercasters in those markets have NO clue how to interpret radar, yet go on air showing people red & green pixels touching 20 miles away from a storm and call it a tornado.

You don't find problem that nearly as much at mid- and small-market stations, because in general if you're doing TV weather in market #108 - you are probably in it because of your passion for weather, not to get rich

 

[Ryan Wichman]

When I lived in NW Ohio I thought the weather coverage was always good. Perhaps it is just the exception to the rule but the Toledo stations would stay on wall to wall during a tornado warning.

An example would be a few weeks ago during the Millbury, OH EF4 Tornado I know of at least one station that was on-air for 6 1/2 straight hours giving severe weather coverage.

Sorry that not everyone has that kind of coverage, but I never had a bad experience in the area.

 

[Mike Smith]

I was paying a sales call on a TV meteorologist in a top 5 market (won't say which one) several years ago. As I was watching the radar during our meeting (which occurred in their weather center), I said, "If I was back in Kansas, I'd be issuing a tornado warning on that storm." The meteorologist replied, "We don't have tornadoes here."

We continued the meeting for a few minutes when their automated weather crawl system came to life with, you guessed it, a tornado warning for the storm in question. The meteorologist immediately sprang into life: Called for the makeup people. They came into the weather center, did their thing, and then the meteorologist went on the air live.

The storm in question did some minor damage, was never determined (to my knowledge) whether it was a tornado or straight-line winds. Regardless, I have found the same thing: large markets outside the tornado belt, generally provide mediocre severe weather coverage.

 

[Chris Vagasky]

Tornado Warnings get brief cut-ins (if that) on major market stations. Many of the TV weathercasters in those markets have NO clue how to interpret radar, yet go on air showing people red & green pixels touching 20 miles away from a storm and call it a tornado.

Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6UZO4ITIj8

I've seen all sorts of terrible cut-ins from the Detroit stations...brief, hardly focusing on any storm in particular, and perhaps my least favorite thing: using the 'future radar' feature.

I did see WXYZ use velocity mode one time, but it was poorly explained, labeled poorly, and later in the same cut-in, they used the 'future radar' product.

 

[Chris Vagasky]

I've noticed the stations have done a little better job this morning conveying the threat, at least mentioning the word "severe" and mentioning the threats of winds (ranging from 60mph on one station to 80mph on another) and large hail.

One station did completely misinterpret the Severe Thunderstorm Watch that expires at 3pm, saying it was for the storms late in the afternoon, and not the advancing MCS

Still no one wants to mention tornadoes, which would be an important thing to mention, with a 10% highlight from SPC, and probable tornado/severe thunderstorm watches this afternoon and evening.

EDIT: And as I write the post, a new video forecast is posted by WXYZ, and they do a great job conveying the risk, even mentioning tornadoes...but again misinterpret the Severe Thunderstorm Watch.

 

[Rob H]

MN media downplayed 6/17/10 to my dismay. I warned friends, family, co-workers, etc. although most of them figured it out when I said I was going chasing locally. My friend that heard "30% chance of scattered storms that morning" on radio and TV was camping half an hour north of Wadena, MN. She was very grateful for the heads up. From my experience, if you're not in the heart of tornado alley, storms are not taken seriously. Then something like the 2000 derecho, or the 2008 Hugo tornado comes through and everyone pays attention for a week or so, before ultimately forgetting again.

 

[Eric Whitehill]

Robert:

Then you missed the wall-to-wall coverage from KVLY and KXJB on the 17th...

They started broadcasting around 3pm, and didn't stop until the last tor warning was canceled for their DMA.

Wadena is also closer to the Fargo DMA, rather than the Twin Cities DMA. I don't have the map handy though to give you what you are most likely looking for however. KFGO radio out of Fargo, also I believe went into wall-to-wall coverage.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on the coverage in the MN and ND area - most stations I looked at had some sort of blurb or something going.

Maybe these stations are the anomaly - there was also the NBA Finals game that night, so perhaps some stations did not want to interrupt that coverage.

I am thinking with the issues in MN, specifically with the Hugo and Rogers tornadoes, storms are taken a tad bit more seriously by the Twin Cities media.

You also have to remember - what "WE" as weather geeks deem as being "Important" is different than what Joe or Jane Q. Public deem important. Most people just want to know if their baseball game will be rained out, not what the CAPE or CIN or Craven is. Stations need to cater to the greater public, not the specific needs of one area that is 2 miles by 2 miles. Yes, if SVR weather breaks out, then yes, perhaps they will take a bigger look at it, however I wouldn't expect to see TV stations breaking out the BV and SWR tools on WSI or Viiper for every event, because 95% of the population has no clue as to how to read it! Sometimes, we have to play to the lowest common denominator. Ask someone off of Lake Street and Chicago in Minneapolis about Doppler radar and what base velocities are. I bet you get a blank stare.

We should, perhaps, consider ourselves lucky, in the fact we do have knowledge about severe weather, and use that to our advantage. In time, perhaps, we can get more people interested in the scientific portions of weather, but until that time comes, I would expect the coverage in many cases to remain below what we believe our expectations to be.

Not saying there is anything wrong with not having 100% of the population being weather geeks, but stations have a limited job to do.

 

[Jason Foster]

Do any of your markets talk about SPC and the risks...around DC they do...especially on WUSA. They don't go into details unnecessarily (it's DC...politics rule most peoples heads), but they (all stations) do tend to have a good balance of explanation vs. technical details (which to many of use is still way to simple). But in asking around...people are generally satisfied with the severe weather reporting locally. General rain and cloud cover....different story...but the severe & winter storm portions are well accepted.