Through a humorous review of commonly used weather words, we see how basic ideas may take on new meaning depending on the age, culture, gender and socioeconomic standing of a viewer or listener. Meteorology jargon and cliché can give a wrong impression of physical processes. Do storms really gather steam? Does fog really burn off? Can a tornado occur and not be on the ground?
A simple phrase like, "we'll see storms in the morning," can have multiple interpretations for when "morning" is, and for what "storms" are. Storms could be ordinary brief isolated thunderstorms. To a person who has seen recent news reports of tornado damage and injury, storms may be perceived as severe thunderstorms or tornadoes. The broadcaster must be clear and not force the audience to assume.
When a broadcaster speaks of, "a frontal boundary producing precipitation," that doesn't clearly say what type of "front" and what type of "precipitation." The phrase is also redundant by the definition of a front.
The challenge of the weather broadcaster is to routinely speak extemporaneously within time constraints. This can lead to redundancy. Only by objectively examining one's work do things like redundancy, jargon, vagueness, and cliché become evident.
In short weather segments it is crucial to reduce unnecessary words and make each word count. In long weather broadcasts it's too easy to use extra "filler" words that add nothing to the ideas presented. Furthermore, misused grammar distracts the audience. Proper grammar can reduce verbiage and make concepts more digestible. Well-chosen words improve weather presentations by limiting the possibility of audience misinterpretation.
Supplementary URL: http://alansealls.com/WxCasters.html
- Indicates paper has been withdrawn from meeting
- Indicates an Award Winner