Okay, so it's snowy in Maryland (and lots of other places). Yesterday the television news as all full of The Storm. Extended hours for news programming, lots and lots of location spots, and so on. A real fuss.
But it wasn't even really a storm; it was just snow. Maybe I'm not fully appreciating the effect 'cause when it stopped yesterday after the first pass (for folks living too far away to have eastern US weather as part of your background noise, it was a two-part weather event with a few hours break in between), steps and rooftops along Lombard Street had about two inches of snow, but I thought I heard someone on the telly report that Mondawmin Mall (about half a city-width north of here) got seven inches. Still, it seemed like unremarkable snow to me. Pretty enough, sure, though it set no records in that department either (too warm at the start of it), but it seemed like the Big News was simply that it was a) the first snow of the season, and b) a bit early for this area (again). Yes, I wanted to know how much of a mess it was going to make, and yes, everyone else needed to know how it was affecting traffic and school/event cancellations, but from the news coverage you'd think it was the railroad tunnel fire or a proper blizzard. This wasn't a blizzard, it was just a pile of snow a few weeks early. (And too many accidents, but I'll come back to that.)
But the point of this entry isn't to go all curmudgeonly about this -- the previous paragraph is more head-scratching than "get a life". No, the point is that I don't remember this sort of reaction from my childhood. And that brings up the question: Have Balto/Wash newscasters gotten more excitable regarding snow, or do I just not remember this from when I was a child because I was outside playing in it instead of noticing what was on television? They did seem to have backed off the extra news programming and urgent tones of voice today: on the one hand there's more snow on the ground than this time yesterday, but on the other hand there's no rush hour to get all scrambled up today.
Now admittedly there did seem to be an awful lot of automobile accidents on the news yesterday, and sensible advice about winter driving being given, and at least one reporter did make a comment about how, being the first snow of the season, area drivers had forgotten how to drive in snow and needed to relearn ... but that only causes me more head-scratching. Last winter wasn't all that long ago, in terms of human memories and skill acquisition/loss. Winter driving isn't something that one should need to re-learn every year. It's not even difficult, really, especially if you want to take the most often suggested approach to it: just allow more following distance, plan for more braking distance in general, keep your speeds reasonable for conditions, and don't make any really sudden moves. No special skills on that list, just pointers! Now if you want to drive a bit faster, or need to traverse unplowed roads in an unsuitable vehicle, or deal with steeper hills than we have in most of Baltimore (admittedly you don't have to go very far outside of the city to find them) covered in ice, or get into and out of parking spaces without bothering to shovel them first, then there are special snow-driving skills that come into play, but even those shouldn't be lost from one winter to the next. The first five minutes behind the wheel in the snow should bring all those memories flooding back.
This region does suffer from what one ex-housemate referred to as "water-soluble driving skills", so I'm accustomed to the area getting all flummoxed by rain and snow in general, but I'm having trouble with that "Since it's the first snowfall of the season everyone will have forgotten everything they've learned in the last five to forty winters they've been driving here" business. Even if it is true, it bloody well shouldn't be.
But then again, we seem to forget our lessons from one election to the next, too, so maybe some environmental poison is robbing the population of our ability to retain what we learn.
Oh bother, I guess I went into curmudgeon mode after all. Harumph!
(no subject)
my personal theory is that as technology allows us to have more and more control of our environment, weather, being essentially uncontrollable, seems increasingly dangerous and frightening.
and of course the news media blows absolutely everything up way out of proportion. thus, weather panic on the news every night.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
And Wednesday it's supposed to get up to 283K here (50F).
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Uh, I also get 24 news if I tune in WTOP on my car radio, but they're already giving traffic and weather reports every ten minutes anyhow.)
(no subject)
What you don't have is 24 hour broadcast news.
Welcome to the internet.
Some of the radio stations broadcast on net radio.
Basketball games on the radio drove me crazy -- the announcers were so hyper.
(no subject)
Now the one non-curmudgeonly thought I have on all this is that in DC and the close-in suburbs (don't know about Baltimore), we did get substantially less snow than they were originally predicting. Some of my friends out in the western suburbs got about eight inches on Thursday night, and I haven't heard how much last night. Of course, they came into work on Friday with no particular trouble, so I guess that doesn't particularly excuse the news panic after all.
(no subject)
But I have an additional factor to throw into the pot. I've mentioned elsewhere on LJ the theory (credit to Brad Blanton, IIRC) that one of the big taboos in middle class western culture is getting excited. There's strictly delineated topics about which it isn't considered gauche to get excited (e.g. sports), but other than that, you're supposed to play it "cool". Appearing to care too much about anything marks one as a geek.
So I think that people get all excited about "storms" -- going wild stocking up in the grocery store, etc. -- because it's just a relief and a pleasure to be able to get excited about something. It's a socially sanctioned occasion to get all worked up, in a good way, about something. It makes them feel live.
And I think the news caters to that. Perhaps they know why people tune in to alarmist weather news or perhaps they exploit it without understanding it. But I think the reason people watch is for precisely the same reason they go to horror movies or get on rollercoasters: so they can experience a thrill and let themselves get properly exercised (in the more obscure sense of the term) -- over something which they know is, in the end, perfectly harmless.
(no subject)
That much is enough to make a fuss over around here. But when I was noticing all the hype on the telly, it was only enough to be "just snow, dudes". Today, enough snow to make a fuss over, but no noticeable fuss when I've turned on the television.