Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Daylight will remain during daytime hours, and it will get dark after sundown

When I was a kid, there was no television. There were three radio networks. Each had a fifteen-minute world newscast in the late afternoon, followed by another fifteen minutes of weather news and sports from the local affiliates. As I recall, the weather and sports news took less than five minutes, total, and the local news was delivered in about ten.

Now? Ow!

Maybe some viewers “need” all the local weather reporting that goes on. But it can be annoying for a curmudgeon.

We get the same “facts” delivered repeatedly over ten minutes or so, with three slightly different “maps” showing the same fronts, clouds, and temperatures. We also get a meteorological lesson with each broadcast. “And when moist air from the gulf moves up from the South and is met by a cold front moving down from the North, that is when precipitation usually forms all along the front.”

The worst part is enduring the redundant blather of the weather forecasters who obviously do not hear themselves. Or, if they do, they are so captivated by the sounds of their own voices that they do not listen to what they say.

“Currently now the temperature at this hour stands at 90 degrees at this time out at the airport here at the six o’clock hour.”

“There are high clouds all around in the immediate vicinity area, but they will be moving on off.”

Most recently I heard, “Temperaturewise, as we speak, the current temperature now stands at 88 degrees, at this time.”


I don’t need that. Just tell me how hot it was, how hot it is, and how hot it may be tomorrow. If there is a good chance of precipitation, tell me that. If we had precipitation, tell me how much. Throw in wind direction and speed if you must. Then get off the stage!

Whatever union may have made it mandatory for weather broadcasters to get equal camera time with news people could improve their members’ images by also requiring that weather reports be professionally written, revised, edited, and then “read” by the meteorologists. After all, news reports are prepared and read by the anchors, not ad libbed in front of photos.

I suppose if the repetitious wordiness were removed from their sentences, the weather people would either have to talk slower, or go over it once more, with yet another graphic, in order to fill their time on camera. That would mean even more times along a line from “there” to “here,” with winds possibly shifting aloft, bringing clouds and a chance of precipitation during the night.

Or, worse, we might have to listen to another lesson on how clouds form, fronts move, or what shifts in the winds may or may not do.

Still, requiring prepared scripts to be read might eliminate the semi-literate redundancy so many weather broadcasters now spew without thinking. . . or listening. I might be able to take the rest if we could eliminate the babble.
~ ~


Blogger Trish said...

It really is funny if it wasn't so irritating. You would think the networks would make sure that all their newscasters would have near-to-perfect scripts. If they don't have much to say, then they should just cut it short.

8/23/2006 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Weather broadcasters do enjoy their jobs and the sound of their own voices, for sure! In most markets, they work for peanuts. They have to feel "paid" by being on camera. Funny post. Thanks.

9/05/2006 1:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They really are unintentionally amusing!

9/06/2006 12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best regards from NY! »

3/04/2007 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wonderful and informative web site. I used information from that site its great. Buy+cod+tramadol Loan consolidation loans

4/23/2007 3:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home