Imagine the science reporter's miracle subject. It would lead young people, who typically care little about newspapers, to read newspapers. Reporters could cover it no matter how small their newspapers, or how stingy their editors. It would draw people to television newscasts in droves. It would so captivate the public that some die-hards might find themselves recording the broadcasts of a channel dedicated exclusively to the subject.
It is: weather.
"It's one of the few things that affects everyone's lives," Steve Pool, a meteorologist at KOMO television in Seattle, told those attending a session of the AAAS conference called "Stormy Weather: Weather, Science and Journalism." The challenge, he said, is educating viewers about the weather when they want nothing to do with the science behind it.
Weather is actually experiencing something of a renaissance these days, what with the movie Twister and all sorts of extreme storms, whether hurricanes, the blizzard of '96 or the truckloads of snow that fell in and around Seattle this past winter. Those media outlets that cover the weather well have the most to gain, and the most to teach the rest of us.
Exhibit A: The Weather Channel.
TWC forecaster Dennis Smith, a self-professed former storm chaser, said TWC has been ranked by viewers as one of the top four most valuable cable networks. It has 60 meteorologists on staff, records more than eight million hits each day on its web page, has launched foreign networks and plans to launch more. South America, the Netherlands and Italy are among the first to fall under the TWC spell. Needless to say, the number of viewers rises exponentially during severe storms that rank right up there with "Real Stories of the Highway Patrol" in terms of excitement.
"We've heard about people who record The Weather Channel," Smith said. "I don't know why."
To gauge the public's interest in and understanding of weather and climate (weather is short term-climate refers to trends over 30 years or more), Kris Wilson of the University of Kansas School of Journalism arranged a survey. He found that college students, who probably rely on the media less than any other class, look most often to the media for weather coverage. He also drew a conclusion that should warm the hearts of us folks in print: television viewers were far less knowledgeable about subjects like global climate change and the greenhouse effect than were regular newspaper readers.
The problem with much reporting on global climate change, Wilson said, is that the stories tend to hinge on "dueling scientists"-one from one side and one from the other, which exaggerates minority views for the sake of balance. This leaves the public as confused as NASW members trying to figure out the food lines at the annual banquet in Seattle. Wilson suggests that reporters start out with stories discussing the rudiments of science-the scientific method, for instance-to build a foundation from which readers can judge subsequent stories about the more controversial side of the skies above us.
Some in the press seized on the summer smash, Twister, as a hook to get into science. Who carried it off the best? Oprah, said Robert Henson of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. ABC also did a nice job. Henson insisted on rattling off the good and bad points of the movie that he said "did for weather what Jurassic Park did for dinosaurs and Jaws did for sharks."
The good: the film depicted science as interesting and exciting, the hero scientist was a woman and tornadoes were clearly dangerous and destructive. The bad: scientists in the movie were "just too damn close" to the tornadoes; the dramatic finale included a morning tornado, when tornadoes almost always brew in the afternoon; the hail looked too much like chipped ice; and-here's the kicker-the hair of scientists caught in a tornado was blowing "anti-cyclonically, not cyclonically," Henson said.
Regardless of the specifics, Twister seems to have generated a healthy interest in the weather. Henson said universities that offer meteorology have recorded a big jump in inquiries, particularly from women.
Knowing the weather can pay off big time, as it did for Brian Norcross, a hero meteorologist in the true sense. He is the TV weatherman who talked much of South Florida through Hurricane Andrew and is now trying to set up a private emergency broadcast system. It would include television and radio stations that who commit enough resources to make sure their weather coverage is fast and accurate, said Linda Roach Monroe, who covered Hurricane Andrew for the Miami Herald.
What's most promising about the weather for science journalists is that it's on everyone's mind. Seattle Times science writer Bill Dietrich said some of the paper's most successful and popular science stories hinged on the powerhouse storms that swept through Washington in recent months. Earlier stories had explained bits and pieces of the weather, but it was not until the Times devoted artists and reporters to do an in-depth job that readers found a solid, big-picture story they could sink their teeth into.
Jack Williams, the editor of USA Today's weather page, agreed that the standard "human interest" weather story leaves readers wanting. Reporters and editors who take the time to integrate a bit of science into the mix can hook an audience. It is not so much the science that turns readers off, he said, as it is the long words and boring figures and formulas. Ditch those, and you have it made.
Michael C. Milstein is the Cody, Wyoming, correspondent of The Billings (MO) Gazette and winner of the Evert Clark Award for 1997 [see story].