| Topic Name: |
What makes a meteorologist? |
| Message Name: |
Again...Missing the Point.!. |
| Date Posted: |
05/05/2005 |
| In Reply To: |
Sorry for all you who spent years obtaining some worthless piece of paper. Viewers click with an on-air personalities because they like them, and not because they have some seal or degree from State U (go State!).
Do news anchors have a seal? How 'bout sports? No? Does that mean that they're no good and don't know what they're talking about?
I'd venture a guess that some of the best AND most popular weathercasters of all time had/have no "seal of approval".
Get real, all it takes is the ability to translate NWS, TWC, and specialized storm center data into words the viewer can understand. Not too difficult.
"This mass of cold upper air will be heading our way within the next 24-48 hours. Combine that with the tropical moisture that's slowly being pushed out to the north, and we could see some heavy, heavy rain in our area".
Degree in criminal justice, thank you. |
| Message: |
No horse beating here. Just a lot of obfuscation and going completely off topic among above posters.
This has NOTHING TO DO with viewer trust, or who's more accurate or has a better track record.
It's a TITLE. It's about who can claim the title of meteorologist! [and I challenge anyone without the training to read a morning weather map and show me where the greatest risk of tornados lies]
Without the TRAINING, you LACK the TOOLS. It's a SCIENCE, it's a PROFESSION, just like medicine, just like astronomy, geology, etc.
Weathercasters without ANY academic training--and the news directors who happily sanction them--who call themselves "meteorologist" on air with impunity DO diminish and demean the credibility of the whole industry (only a small fraction of which is in our little TV news fantasy world).
It's just part of the overall deterioration of quality and credibility in TV news.
|
|
