The Weather Channel in Atlanta - new set

Except in 2011, 2007, 2006 and 2005....

Sorry but a couple of EF-0 to EF1 tornadoes a year doesn't constitute an OUTBREAK.
THis is an outbreak. Imagine multiple tornadoes dropping out of the sky every minute. The 2011 tornado outbreak eclipsed the 1974 outbreak for the largest of all time. There were 337 confirmed tornadoes over the three day span, with over 11 billion dollars in damage across 17 states. Each year the United States sees an average of 1,253 tornadoes
http://www.ustornadoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/april14-15-2012-tornado-outbreak.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Veterans_Day_Tornado_Outbreak.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_27%E2%80%9330,_2014_tornado_outbreak

The average number of annual tornado fatalities in the U.S. is 80. The average number of annual tornado fatalities in the UK is zero.

Floods kill an average of 200 people a year in the US. Most years, there isn't a single flood-related fatality in the UK.

And let's not even mention tropical storms and hurricanes.

Because of of its position where cold and dry subarctic air meets hot and humid subtropical air, the U.S. has one of the most violent climates on Earth. The UK climate, on the other hand, tends to be among the most uneventful, even compared to Continental Europe.

People who condemn "silly" U.S. weather coverage for going overboard really don't know much about American weather. There is a reason why all this coverage exists -- it's the same reason why Japan has an elaborate system of tsunami warnings:



Is Japan also being "silly" here?

I'm blessed not to live in an area with severe weather but it borders those that do experience them. I believe some people don't understand how frightening it can be if they've never been in such situations or live close to them. Many of those living in such places don't get use to it.

Whilst I wouldn't have been so tactless in commenting on the video, I can see where the "silly" comment comes from. Sensationalist, boastful broadcasts about the weather is something I couldn't see going down well here. The Japanese example that has been posted is far more restrained and informational.

The over-the-top style of the US example is what can seem silly to many people.

Agreed!

i was just pished tbh

Well this is refreshing. A few months ago we were being told the UK should beef up it's weather coverage and do it more like the US, with many questions about how we cope during outbreaks of severe weather without dedicated weather channels, automatic alerts and scores of broadcast meteorologist personalities. At that time UK members were being told that we do have severe weather, resulting in numerous deaths each year, which might be saved if we followed the US weather model.

The US coverage does seem silly, when viewed from a UK perspective . That's not to say it isn't doing a sterling job in the US, or people in the US are stupid for not realising how rubbish it is. It's a comment that if you broadcast the same thing in the UK, people wouldn't be able to take it seriously. It's a great example of the divide between the two cultures where it comes to expectations of programmes and broadcasters between the two countries (a divide which some members have been known to deny exists...).

Not even. I live in Australia; we have floods, cyclones, bushfires, week-long 40C heatwaves and destructive thunderstorms every year. I lost power for weeks thanks to a cyclone only two years ago, and I live in the inner-area of Australia's third largest city. That being said, weather coverage in our country is still largely relegated to the last 5 minutes of a news bulletin unless in major circumstances.


Granted, TWC is a 24 hour weather channel, but what members here are arguing is that America is some special snowflake of extreme weather that needs a set with 40 different plasmas and a rotating panel of experts. In reality, this just seems to confirm that American cable news, including TWC, is just a hive of craziness and sparkly gimmicks that hides little actual information and a whole lot of scaremongering. The same emergency weather information can be communicated by just one man behind a desk reading off warning zones with a map graphic and perhaps an expert on the phone (which is common here in Aus and seems to do a pretty good job). There simply is no benefit to this new set... apart from theatre.

Besides, very few people would be watching The Weather Channel in the event of a tornado. Most likely scenario: the tornado sirens blare and everyone in the immediate area goes into their bunkers and rides it out. I cannot think of a reason why someone would continue to watch television (and a national station over local TV or radio at that) in the event of a major emergency.

Says the people that have never been to the USA or Canada during Severe Weather Outbreaks or even watched the Weather Channel or any severe weather coverage.

How could you possibly know that? I've certainly watched US severe weather coverage, and I've also watched the Weather Channel.

Australia is a far smaller media market than the U.S., with fewer available resources. It's also a sparsely populated country, which means that unless major weather events strike in the vicinity of large cities, they don't affect as many people.

Having said that, weather forecasts also tend to be merely short segments before the sports block in the U.S. The only exception is when severe weather threatens. Of course, the Weather Channel is a dedicated weather service, but many other countries have those as well.



Likewise, you can also produce a newscast by having "one man behind a desk" reading off various news items straight from a piece of paper and no images. It will still inform people, but it won't take advantage of all the possibilities provided by the television medium. Showmanship ("the skill of performing in such a manner that will appeal to an audience," as Wikipedia puts it) has always been an important element in television, and if you can use state-of-the-art graphics and analysis to make weather phenomena understandable and interesting to people, while potentially saving lives in the process, why resort to "one man behind a desk"? In other words, why go purposefully back in time to where U.S. television was decades ago?

There is plenty to criticize about American television, but severe weather coverage -- and I'm not just talking about the Weather Channel -- is an area in which the U.S. leads the world. Recently, there have even been calls in Germany for a U.S.-style system of televised weather warnings.