Invariably after a "big' weather event, angry viewer
phone calls follow. Usually, it’s the
same people. The reoccurring characteristic of these callers is that they never
Identify themselves. They just start
venting once they hear the voice mail beep and abruptly end the call often
times in mid-sentence.
A few things before you begin: This post chronicles a really bad phone call. We don't get them that often. 99.9% of viewers are great and are a joy to talk to both on the phone
and in public. It's that 0.1% who frankly,
drive you nuts. I want to reiterate that
the first part of the call is the actual "transcript". The latter 2/3 is pieced together with my fantasy responses. I
purposefully used "enter city" in the place of a specific city. Here we go with the call.
Viewer: "What
happened to all this rain?"
Me: "Whom am I speaking with?"
Viewer: "You
said it was going to rain all day?"
Me: "I am sorry sir. What is your name? Where are you
calling from?"'
Viewer: "You
said it was going to rain all day?"
Me: "Your name, sir...where are you
calling from?"'
Viewer: "Dave from
(enter city)."
Me: "Dave, I believe I said that the rain would be
scattered and not everyone would see rain. I most certainly didn't say it would
'rain all day.'"
Viewer: "I got no rain in (enter city). My wife and I think you need to go back to
weather school."
Normally, the conversation would end here with me saying
something innocuous like "I'll take that under advisement" or some
other canned, hyper-neutral response like "thank you for your
feedback." If the conversation were to take a turn to the dark side, this
is where it happens. So to the dark side
we go. The viewer portion below is real. My response below is a purely hypothetical
retort that often goes through my head in the heat of the moment. I remind myself that it takes a level of
discipline and nicety that rivals Sister Teresa not to snap back with a more
piercing, direct response when taking to a belligerent viewer. Thank goodness for that mental filter that prevents
thoughts from becoming words.
Remember,
my responses are more therapeutic than literal, a
cathartic moment for me as the rain continues to fall today so PLEASE don't
take it seriously. I’m just having a little bit of fun. Let’s continue with the
rest of the phone call...
Me: "Sir, the very nature of atmospheric behavior has
a built in element of randomness. While
we have equations and computer projections that do a very good job of estimating
the position and strength of rain/storms a certain time intervals into the
future, there and always will be limitations...
Viewer: "...You can take your computers and fancy math
stuff and all of your Facebook pictures and throw them out the window...I can
do a better job by looking out my kitchen window"
Me: "Sir, we all believe that our weather outside our
window is a microcosm of the overall weather picture. Most times, this isn’t the case unless we are
experiencing a widespread area of tropical spring rain which happens maybe 3 or
4 times a year"
Viewer: "Why don't you get it? You're fancy technology sucks and doesn't do
ANYTHING! Forecasts were better 20 years ago than now..."
Me: "Trust me, sir. I understand what you are saying but your
wrong. Forecasting is MORE ACCURATE in
recent years. This has been..."
Viewer: "...Do
you even know where (enter city) is?"
Me: "Sir, I've
spend many a day in (enter city) as a kid visiting my cousin. I can't tell you how many 4th of July's I've
celebrated in (enter city) and other surrounding communities.
Viewer: "You
never mention (enter city) at all in
your weather."
Me: " I absolutely do!
I just can't mention (enter city)
in every weathercast. Its next to
impossible to mention the 1000+ different communities in northeastern Ohio in a
little under two and a half minutes."
Viewer: "Why
don't you like (enter city)?"
Me: "Sir, I just said I try to mention (enter city) as much as possible. The universe doesn't revolve around your (enter
city) There are other locations we need to worry about just as much"
Viewer: "Go back to weather school where you can learn
how to be accurate."
(At this point, the conversation is now spinning back in on
itself; a runaway collapse with no way of resuscitating it. At this stage, the hopes of a rational discussion are almost zero. My
attempts are futile)
Me: "Sir, my point is that while spotty showers didn't
occur in (enter city) where you live they did occur in many other
places. So, my forecast of 30% coverage was accurate. Each of us has an atmospheric horizon--dome
of weather influence which surrounds us at any given point--and its very
small. Weather still occurs outside of
what we can see."
Viewer: "You are
full of yourself. Your no damn
psychologist. You are a (expletive) horrible weatherman..."
Me: "Sir, this conversation is going nowhere. If you want to have a rational and objective
conversation about all of the variables that go into the mechanics of
meteorology and how our cognitive biases shape our perceptions on the accuracy of weather forecasts, I am all in. If you want to continue to use
inappropriate language and behave in a disrespectful manner, this conversation
is over.
Viewer: Dead
silence...(Click)
I can only imagine what customer service associates go
through each day.
