Lightning Fast Format Changes And Back Again

[Dan.Strassberg]

However, I think the public would respond very negatively if WBZ were
to replace the recorded voicings with text articulation by the NWS's
"Perfect Paul." Nevertheless, having an automated voice articulate the
forecast would provide a listener benefit: I don't think I am unique
in telling myself, "Listen, dammit; you mustn't miss the forecast,"
only to realize at 12 or 22 or 42 or 52 minutes past the hour that my
attention had flagged a couple of minutes earlier when the forecast
was on. I suspect that the automated voice would stand out from the
cacaphony of human voices and listeners would be much less likely to
miss the forecasts when they felt they HAD to hear them. But I don't
think WBZ could save the big $$$ it pays Accu-Weather by simply
recording the forecasts from the NWS VHF weather service; the
Accu-Weather forecasts are much more succinct.

-----
Dan Strassberg (dan.strassberg@att.net)
eFax 1-707-215-6367

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Garrett Wollman" <wollman@bimajority.org>
To: "Paul B. Walker, Jr." <walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com>
Cc: <bri@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 25, 2009 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: Lightning Fast Format Changes And Back Again


> <<On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:57:55 -0500, "Paul B. Walker, Jr."
> <walkerbroadcasting@gmail.com> said:
>
>> Dan, I think that's a stretch just a bit. I think it's simply some
>> of the
>> weather forecasters are meteorologists and some arent.
>
> There's really no earthly reason, other than bogus marketing, for
> any
> of them to be meterologists.  They're just reading a forecast (made,
> in most cases, by computer models) into a microphone attached to a
> recording device.  (Most Accu forecasts aren't read live, as is made
> abundantly clear on those occasions when they accidentally play the
> previous day's forecast.)
>
> -GAWollman