THE FIRST 100 TAPES by Tom Loffman Reprinted from The WeatherCaster, Winter 1990 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This has been my first year as a tape reviewer for the Seal. To say the least, it has been quite a learning experience for me. Now I understand why Barbara Frye of Magid said in Miami that by and large all our tapes look the same. In defense of everyone doing TV weather - the reason we all look much the same is that we are all trying to accomplish much the same thing in a limited amount of time, with similar equipment. When we structure our weathercasts in some logical order, things naturally tend to be placed in roughly the same general sequence in the program, and hence there is a great deal of similarity. The more tapes you look at, the more you long to see something different, some creativity. However, there's a more subtle problem that I see after viewing all these tapes, and its a problem that could lead to the destruction of our profession as we know it. Not only do we generally look the same, but its almost impossible to tell the difference between the qualified meteorologists and the unqualified presenter. How do I reach that conclusion? When I review a tape I don't read the biographical information until after I have seen the shows. I try to judge the person by what I see on the air without fore knowledge of that they "ought" to know based on their training and education. What surprises - even astonishes me - is that 80% to 90% of all applicants demonstrate no apparent knowledge of meteorology beyond an elementary level. I frequently remark on a review that any competent presenter could do the same program. What do I mean by "demonstrate a knowledge of meteorology". In order to define this, lets first consider a weather presentation by someone with no knowledge, or a very elementary knowledge of "weather" - let's not call it meteorology. With today's equipment there will be lots of pretty maps, radar, satellite loops, today's highs and lows, video, some animation perhaps, highs, lows and fronts, and of course the forecast. The extended will usually be a three day forecast, or possibly a five day. The program will contain lots of "what" and little "why". If there is an explanation of the current or projected weather setup it will consist of an elementary description of a high, low, or front in the area. This information is readily obtained from the various products that are issued by the National Weather Service. In order to understand what is meant by a "high" or "low" or "front" anyone can go down to the local book store and pick up a couple of simple books describing the basics of weather for the layman, or for children. My favorite is the "Golden Book Of..." series. Actually, one reading of this little gem can suffice for the average non-meteorologist. I have known and worked with many presenters, and few of them have even gone to this length to educate themselves about the weather. I liken it to someone doing the sports who never reads anything about sports, or someone doing the news who doesn't read the newspaper or any publication dealing with current events. Why would someone who is earning a living "doing the weather" on TV not read any books about the weather? Beats me, but I've worked with some of these folks. Now, here's the problem. Most of the viewers have never studied weather. Most news directors have no training in weather. So they can't really tell whether the presenter is credible or not. I have seen untrained people show yesterday's satellite photo on the air and describe it as if it were today's - and nobody noticed it. I have seen presenters talk about non-existent highs and lows - point to obvious upper air lows and then say that "high pressure will be moving in bringing us fair weather tomorrow". No one said a thing. I have heard presenters throw together "fancy sounding" weather terms into a conjured explanation - and it all sounds wonderful, except that it doesn't make sense. And when the forecast busts - well, that darned storm just decided to do something else. What's this all got to do with the "problem" I see developing in the profession? The presenters are chosen to do the weather because they look good, and sound good, and people like them. Nothing wrong with that. Well, just one thing - if they look good, and sound good, and are liked - and no one can tell the difference between them and a qualified meteorologist who might not look and sound as good, why in the world would a news director hire, or keep, the meteorologist? I know, lots of reasons come to mind. I can come up with at least five good ones. However, I see a lot of terrific jobs these days going to untrained presenters, while some very qualified meteorologists are being skipped over time and time again. I also see that the beautiful graphics machines that we all use make it ridiculously easy for almost anyone to put a great looking weather show on the air with only a few days training. So what should a meteorologist do on the air that's different than the presenter? Perhaps explain the "why" and not just the "what". How about explaining something, teach something, do a special map here and there. Why not show the upper air flow, and not just show a moving rope and say "here's the jet stream". What's the jet stream anyway, and why put it on the map then not explain what it's there for? Often, after viewing a tape, I wonder if: 1) the applicant has ever studied meteorology, and 2) the applicant really knows how the weather works. Then, when I read the biographical info - B.A. or B.S. in Meteorology, worked for weather this or that, many years doing weather here or there - it just isn't coming across on the air! That's why I urge you, as I have done with myself, to objectively examine your own programs, and compare yourself with the presenter. Are you really using and demonstrating all that meteorology, or are you just going through the motions? Can YOU tell from your own program that you really understand and can explain the weather, or are you just describing the highs and lows and fronts? Could an untrained but good looking and sounding reporter come in and learn how to do your program and perhaps put you out of business? Good luck, and good soul searching!