Actually, I don't think MSU is REALLY the issue. What's at issue is a deeper question - namely, what IS our profession really all about? Is it about meteorology or weather reporting? If it's about meteorology then TV stations should be hiring meteorologists with the A.M.S. Seal. If it's about weather reporting then TV stations should be hiring attractive, personable broadcasters who can deliver the National Weather Service forecast in a likable, ratings-grabbing style.
Now, let's all think about this. If we really step back a bit we realize our profession is about both, and it all comes down to the folks doing the hiring. So why are we taking pot-shots at each other?
The fact is that our managers don't know what they want as long as it works. If they believe that a meteorologist with a Seal will improve their ratings they'll hire a meteorologist. If they believe a personality will raise the ratings they'll hire a personality.
Often, you'll see one TV station in a market promoting their meteorologist with the Seal, while their competitors across the street promote their personality just as vigorously.
And if you think that the meteorologists are important in "serious" weather markets while the personalities are better suited to the "easy" weather markets, think again. How many A.M.S. Sealed mets can you count on the air in New York City? How many in San Francisco? In S.F. all three network affiliates have meteorologists on the air in the primary spot with the Seal.
And, how about Miami? Brian Norcross gave an address to the A.M.S. weathercasting conference several years ago and told us how he was on the way "out" and was going to be replaced by a "personality" just before Hurricane Andrew hit. Apparently, not enough hurricanes had hit South Florida prior to Andrew to "scare" the news directors into insisting that all primary weathercasters there be meteorologists. What does it take?
The fact is, TV weather really isn't about weather at all. It's about television, and that means ratings. When I first started in this business I thought our profession was 90% about weather and 10% about show-biz. But after more than two decades on the air I now believe the numbers are reversed - that the people who do the hiring don't care how I come up with my forecast as long as I do a good job on the air.
I am convinced that my various news directors over the years couldn't have cared less whether I made the forecast myself, copied the National Weather Service forecast, bought a forecast from a private firm, stole it from my competitors or the Weather Channel, or just made it up in my head on the way to the station. All they cared about was that a forecast appeared on the air and that it wasn't so consistently wrong that viewers stopped watching our newscast. Am I exaggerating?
Personally, I would rather see the big jobs go to meteorologists with the A.M.S. Seal. But, if someone doesn't have a "normal" four year degree in Atmospheric Science, a three year stint with MSU is better than just copying the zone forecast. And, how many very successful TV weathercasters who are pulling down "big bucks" do you know of who are just regurgitating the zones every day and calling it their forecast? Does anyone admit to reading the NWS forecast anymore? The only person I can think of is the recently retired Pat McCormick of KTVU-TV in Oakland who always went on the air with the "National Weather Service forecast".
So, back to my original question. What's this profession all about? And why are we still throwing verbal stones at each other? If we feel the need to expend some energy in this direction let's figure out a way to convince those who do the hiring that they should employ persons who actually know what they're talking about. And this should apply to anchors as well.
Unfortunately, I fear, it "ain't gonna happen."