RE: WBZ Weather

[Roger Kirk <rkirk@videoserver.com>]

Steve Sawyer wrote:

>Here's a question I've pondered from time to time..
>Does anyone know why it was that WBZ 1030 dumped using the TV
>weathermen; I.E. Bruce Schwoegler (sp?) Barry Burbank, etc., in favor of
>"AccuWeather"?  In my opinion, the service provided by the TV guys was
>MUCH more accurate and timely than anything that AccuWeather can
>provide.  Also seems to me that it would have remained more cost
>effective to use the TV guys than to go with an outside weather company.

The above scenario is a touch more complex i.e. whenever weather   
transcends "normal" and becomes "complex", "interesting" or   
"threatening",  radio news calls upon one of WBZ-TV's weatherman to   
provide more "insight" than is available from the accu-guys.

I question whether it would be truly cost-effective for radio to divert   
60 seconds of TV-WXguy time every 10 minutes - all day long.   
 Realistically, I'll bet TV would view it as a resource drain and   
constant source of interruption/irritation.  The result would be an hour   
or two of reports all taped at once.  Just like David Brudnoy "pretends"   
to talk to Jack Williams (taped) twice each evening about the upcoming 11   
o'clock news - and Jack "pretends" to answer him.  It's so phony.

At least now, each forecast is fresh, new verbiage - logical content   
probably doesn't change that often.  But it can as conditions warrant.

Comments?  (from somebody on the inside?)

Roger Kirk a.k.a. The Wizard Of Music
rkirk@videoserver.com  

------------------------------