It's not like I think the met office doesn't do a brilliant job, just that their methods of presenting weather forecasts are ganz schlect.
Sunday, 14 December 2008
I was listening to the news this morning, and when he came to the weather he claimed that it would be 'wet and cloudy throughout england, with scattered showers'. That was really vague. Ok, and then he said 'temperatures will range to a high of 1 degree in Northern Ireland to 6 degrees in the North-East'. So then what's the temerature going to be like in Oxford? I'd rather he not try to cram the weather into two sentences and make it so unspecific it could apply to just about anywhere. The news in the newspaper's worse, they don't list Oxford in the newspapers we read (the Independent, the Guardian) they just show a graphic with different icons hanging over bits of the UK which aren't heavily populated. And if you're getting to the end of the newspaper you must be really starved for news. On to the television news: it's unnecessary to have a man standing in front of a greenscreen pointing out where the clouds are going to go, we have eyes, we can see the little animation. Not only that, but they stop the animation at times like 4:00 AM when only the dusbin men are awake, and then they like fast-forward to 1:00 PM. So the morning's obviously not important then. And when they come to predict what happens on Friday, it's just not worth listening because they don't know what's going to happen on Friday, they barely know what's going to happen in two days time. When the journal finishes and it's slightly too cold they show a graphic of someone with a coat on and then the presenter makes a bad joke which nobody lstens to because they're all dying in the huge Tsunami that he's quietly ignored because he was too busy being a cock. When you want to see the weather: go to BBC.co.uk/weather. Save your location. Look at the twenty-four hour prediction. It's all you'll ever need.
Posted by Pierre Marshall at 07:15