Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 10:30 AM ET, 12/22/2008

Weather Channel Criticized for One-Sided Reporting

By Jason Samenow

* Full Forecast: Bitter Cold to Steadily Moderate *

Weather Channel Accused of Pro-Weather Bias

Rumor has it similar accusations will be directed at the Capital Weather Gang. We are busily drafting talking points in response...

By Jason Samenow  | December 22, 2008; 10:30 AM ET
Categories:  Humor  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forecast: Bitter Cold to Steadily Retreat
Next: Our New Weather Photo Gallery


I wish I had that 2 minutes of my life back while watching this. :P

Posted by: rmcazz | December 22, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Samenow wrote, "Rumor has it similar accusations will be directed at the Capital Weather Gang."

Similar is the key word in that sentence. I would say to make the "accusation" more accurate, you will be accused of having a weather bias and left leaning political bias. Speaking of which, I wanted to recommend that you add a new tag to your list - Bush Administration Bashing. You could abbreviate it BAB.

I wish you did have nothing but a weather bias. That would be fantastic.

Mr. Q.

Posted by: Mr_Q | December 22, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

While a longtime participant on this forum (and I will continue to be, as I enjoy it and have plenty to add), I have to agree with Mr. Q....he has hit the nail on the head. The Capital Weather Gang, on the whole (and particularly Andrew Freeman), has been too quick to both "Bash the Administration" and to adopt positions on so-called "Global Warming" that are dubious at best. My strong suggestion, before the Capital Weather Gang winds up in the same boat that the Weather Channel is in, is to stick to forecasting/observations and keep speculative politics out of the issue.

Posted by: MMCarhelp | December 22, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

(1) For the comedically-challenged, the video was a satire from the Onion (the Onion News Network was one of many give-aways).

(2) If global warming is truly a "speculative" issue, I guess the entire weather/science community as well as countless nations, politicians, and businesses are crazy for treating it like reality. In the words of the knowledgeable Tom Cruise, I guess we're all just being "glib" about global warming. Maybe I should try ignoring expert advice in other areas of my if I ever need surgery, I'll shun the surgeon in favor of someone who was skilled at removing the "funny bone" in the game "Operation"...

Posted by: mr_weatherman_2000 | December 22, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"However, its writers may offer opinions on policies adopted or championed by a particular public figure or political party. These opinions are those held expressly by the writer and do not represent an official position of Capital Weather Gang."

Posted by: Sterlingva | December 22, 2008 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Ya know, being attacked on the same subject over and over again can be very tiresome. Though I find the fact that some of you criticize us on a climate change so vehemently curious. Consider, This blog is made up of a number of individuals how have all attended an institute of higher learning to study the field and all moved on to careers relative to atmospheric science. While I cannot speak for everyone in CWG, it would appear that many, if not all, share a similar view regarding our hot-button talking points. Maybe, just maybe, we know something about the careers that we've all chosen and aren't just the brainwashed sheep of the left-handed elitist media that you would make us out to be. Just something to consider...

Posted by: Brian-CapitalWeatherGang | December 22, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

I went to college, too, majored in climatology, and spent 33 years in both NOAA/NWS and the FAA, so I am not exactly uneducated myself. I did not "attack" anyone here with my comments. I only pointed out that global "warming" is a theory (not fact)that has NOT been proved. In fact, it may be unprovable. The whose issue of climate "change", the science of land/ocean/atmospherie temperature interactions, and the cause-and-effect relationship, is so incredibly complex that even supercomputers can't figure it out. And if the greatest computers ever designed by man can't understand it , you can bet your bottom dollar that Al Gore and Tom Cruise can't.

Posted by: MMCarhelp | December 22, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

dito ;)>

Posted by: deveinmadisonva | December 22, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to kindly remind the commenters that Barack Obama received 93 percent of DC's votes in the 2008 election. In other words, the Capital Weather Team aren't the only ones with a pro-left slant. ;-)

Posted by: KBurchfiel | December 22, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

So because the idea is so complex, we should just throw our hands up and go "oh well?" This isn't a theological issue where we have to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. We KNOW we have warming. The temperature records are clear. We could debate whether or not humans are cause - or not - but the simple truth is that hundreds of thousands of years ago, warming had no impact on humanity as we know because there WAS no humanity as there is today.

The proponents against the theory of global warming seem more interested in pointing out that it's a theory (which, by the way, the Earth being round was a theory for a long time as well) than considering the consequences of doing nothing. There aren't studies on the long-term effects of living in Los Angeles these days (where I live) due to bad air quality...and quite frankly, I'd rather not spend the rest of my life here simply to prove (or disprove) that my premature death wasn't from lung cancer...

Here's my proposal: let the intellectual debate about global warming continue. Meanwhile, let's hope the political machines of the world err on the side of caution and make changes that - even if "false" - are likely to at least reduce consumption and waste as well as reduce our risks if these theories happen to be correct...

Posted by: mr_weatherman_2000 | December 22, 2008 11:27 PM | Report abuse

Brisk was mentioned 128 times? Oh no! This cannot be tolerated. I need protesters, Fox News, Candy Crowley and every other media related thing sent to Smyrna ASAP! We need to stop the Cloud Elders! I love when the Onion lampoons weather and weather-related stuff.

Boy, don't I feel like the black sheep not getting in on this pro-left argument in the comments section of a post that was intended to be light-hearted? I need to get with the program or something! Sheesh!

Posted by: weatherdudeVA | December 23, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

KBurchfiel: ANY Democrat would have received 90% of the vote in didn't have to be Obama. D.C. is the prime example of knee-jerk voting...Marion Barry has proved that, time and time again.

Posted by: MMCarhelp | December 23, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company