Weather Reporting Continues to Piss Me Off

[bjarvis]

*Rant mode on*

I was reading a report on Beryl moving along the US east coast a few minutes ago.

Looking at the map to the upper left, it strikes me that the big news of this article should be that this storm is going hit Nova Scotia full-on. Instead, the article is all about Beryl being a non-event on the US eastern seaboard. WTF?!

I admit it: I've always been really annoyed at schizoid TV weather forecasts that clearly show satellite photos of all of Canada & the US to indicate ugliness crossing the border, but then reduce their tactical diagrams to the US only, showing blackness where Canada sits. Do they think a blizzard system moving south from the Canadian prairies simply materializes out of nothingness at the US-Canada border? Do they think that just because a storm or flood crest moves north of the contiguous 48 that it no longer exists?

Weather doesn't follow nice, convenient international borders or boundaries. Meteorologists better than most know that these are systems which are influenced by broad areas of the planet. Where does this bury-our-head-in-the-sand reporting come from?

*Rant mode off.*
*Well, OK, rant mode reduced somewhat.*

Comments

[madknits.livejournal.com]

Well, c'mon, you know that Canada isn't a real country.

It is just another example of the self centeredness of US culture.

[kent4str.livejournal.com]

You know, something just occurred to me that might actually be an answer - maybe it's international copyright law that prevents any US news source from showing weather info obtained from Canadian sources. Not that the US weather radar stops at the border, either, but maybe proving where your info came from is more bother than it's worth.

Hey, it's a guess.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

The blind spot up north is everywhere once you notice it. But certain things about the system are set up to encourage it -- as you know, Canada has been very careful to "protect" its culture by law, and some of the ways this is done give US-based media no incentive to provide information about Canadian topics. For example, Canadian regulation has tried to block entry of international media covering news, music, weather, etc., in favor of "national champion" clone networks (see http://www.theweathernetwork.com/twn/companyinfo/info.htm for the Canadian "Weather Channel".) Since Canadian viewership is low, of-interest-to-Canadians topics are minimized.

[bjarvis.livejournal.com]

But you'd think that residents of border states would be *very* interested in whatever weather is happening a few miles away since it will be their own weather the following day.

On a smaller scale, DC weather tends to come from Virginia & West Virginia. I doubt we'd accept the three day forecast on faith alone if the local TV news couldn't be bothered to show what's happening to the west of us.

[pectopah.livejournal.com]

Border states are very interested. In Vermont, they give the weather for all of Vermont and adjacent Quebec, NH, MA and NY. We listen to NPR in Montreal (but can't get the CBC in Vermont). In Canada, we also get the wait times to cross the US border on busy days. Weather reporting in our part of Canada tends to be either quite local and detailed or province-wide and general.

I think part of the reason for the lack of coverage about Beryl hitting NS is that all of the Canadian reporting I saw said that Beryl wouldn't hit NS directly, but that there would be heavy showers. Given the chaos/anger over how Ottawa is handling the evacuation from Beirut, Beryl, as an essentially non-event, only got coverage briefly during the weather.

[beartalon.livejournal.com]

I don't understand how us blocking international media changes whether the US is infomed about weather coming from Canada that will affect them. Weather is a global phenomenon, so a blind spot there is rather odd. As for preserving our culture, I understand that.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

The majority of the population isn't interested in where weather comes from or capable of looking at a map to see weather systems moving in their direction. The tendency is to show the map focused on the area immediately surrounding the audience's area of interest so that you can give the finest detail, as text showing place names and temps and the like has to be a certain size to be visible. It wouldn't surprise me if local stations in an area full of Quebecois snowbirds pay some attention to weather in Lower Canadam for example. But ignorance compounds ignorance in a mass medium -- if most people don't care about X, mass media won't show X, and that reinforces the ignorance that leads to indifference. Weather may be a global phenomena, but how often do mass media show weather in Europe and Asia? Never, except on networks that have global viewership.

[cuyahogarvr.livejournal.com]

Beryl??? Storm??? East Coast??? What are you talking about??? See, those of us buried in the Midwest also have blinders placed on us by our weather flunkies. If it weren't for family members/friends located on the coast (Charleston, DC, New Jersey), we would have no clue about the weather in other parts of the country. What's more important is having people in western Ohio and Michigan who call and tell us what type of weather to expect in the next 24 hours. They are much more valuable to us than any of our weather people.


Speaking of Canada - you know that great big extension of our land mass just the other side of "our" lake, the only time it ever appears on our weather screens is when one of those lovely Alberta Clippers comes barrelling down the pike. Then its "Canadian Shield this" and "Arctic Mass that". You'd think the country only affected our weather in Winter.

it's not about helping people

[(Anonymous)]

Weather forecasts come ultimately from NOAA. TV "meteorologists are really only readers whose main skill is knowing how to read NOAA reports. And NOAA staff aren't paid to solve problems in other countries, as Congress makes perfectly clear each year.

Of course, broadcasters could add their own statements about Canada, if they chose. But no companies in Canada buy nearly enough advertising time on any given TV channel to make USA broadcasters pay attention.

In other words, it's about bureaucracy and business, not helping people or providing service.

Re: it's not about helping people

[(Anonymous)]

USA government content is noncopyright. In other words, anyone can take a NOAA broadcast and use it for free. Broadcasters make money by repackaging NOAA blather so it's (supposedly) understandable for even burger flippers.

[beartalon.livejournal.com]

Due to the shape of the US, it's easy to show only the 48 without showing a whole lot of Canada. The other way around, to show all of Canada requires showing half of the 48 because the penetrating tip of Ontario (where I live - yes, I'm further south than most parts of the northern states) ends roughly at the same latitude of northern California.

Our weather services do cover a lot of the nearby states and popular travel destinations in the US simply because we go there.

I would assume that the border states show more stuff crossing the border than DC's weather.

Honestly though, I don't think most people here or there care about out-of-area weather patterns unless they move fast enough to affect them in 24 hours.

Right now, do you care about Nova Scotia, or are you focused on the weather in West Virginia and how hot (and sweaty) your weekend might be? :)