Nieman Lab.
Predictions for
Journalism, 2024.
In 2024, we’ll turn to television meteorologists to better understand how to restore the public’s trust in news.
Many of us have a favorite weathercaster — someone with whom you trust your life when the weather may be trying to take it. I grew up watching Bob Ryan in Washington — and when I lived in New Orleans, I relied on Margaret Orr, which is why I proudly own this t-shirt. If you live in the Birmingham market, your go-to might be James Spann, especially after his coverage of the horrifying Super Outbreak of 2011. Gary England is so popular in Oklahoma that people created a drinking game to entertain themselves while he “kept them advised” of the latest warnings. And Seattleites will miss one of the smoothest broadcasters in local television, the late Steve Pool. We feel a sense of loyalty towards our favorite weathercasters.
At a time when trust in news is approaching historic lows, many Americans across several demographics still trust television meteorologists. An April 2023 poll by The Economist and YouGov found that The Weather Channel is the most trusted television news network in the United States. It’s the only news network that a majority of both Republicans and Democrats trust — which is notable, because the only other network that a majority of Republicans trust, per the same poll, is Fox News. This poll and a similar one from 2022 found that a majority of those who were surveyed trust The Weather Channel regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, age, gender, or level of education.
So why does the public trust weathercasters — especially since a prevalent stereotype of them is that they’re always wrong? And how can other journalists who cover things like politics borrow from weathercasters to do a better job of connecting with their audiences?
The stakes for finding these answers are high. Our society can suffer from serious side effects when the public doesn’t trust journalism, including an inability of the press to serve as an effective watchdog over our institutions; people deciding to not watch the news, which could lessen their awareness of things they should know; and people deciding to follow sources that spread misinformation. None of this benefits our democracy.
And the answers aren’t immediately obvious. Yes, meteorologists provide us with information that we can immediately apply and that might save our lives — but so do other journalists. A traffic reporter might have saved you 30 minutes on the way to work this morning, and a health reporter might have kept you from having salmonella for breakfast. And you might think it’s because weathercasters are apolitical, but they’ve actually drawn criticism and even received death threats for sharing their observations on the hot-button issue of climate change. They’ve also directly entered politics, running for office and winning.
We’ll increasingly consider these questions in 2024 while respecting the polygon in an era of extreme weather. We might find ourselves dodging floods in Philadelphia, or huffing wildfire smoke in Washington, or wondering why there’s a tropical storm in Southern California, of all places.
Is it climate change? Is it natural variation? Is it a combination of both? What do we know with certainty? And is that nasty storm coming toward us? We’ll look to the weather scientists on television to tell us. They’ll “keep us advised.” (By the way, that’s a drink if you’re keeping score in Norman.)
Christoph Mergerson is an assistant professor in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.
In 2024, we’ll turn to television meteorologists to better understand how to restore the public’s trust in news.
Many of us have a favorite weathercaster — someone with whom you trust your life when the weather may be trying to take it. I grew up watching Bob Ryan in Washington — and when I lived in New Orleans, I relied on Margaret Orr, which is why I proudly own this t-shirt. If you live in the Birmingham market, your go-to might be James Spann, especially after his coverage of the horrifying Super Outbreak of 2011. Gary England is so popular in Oklahoma that people created a drinking game to entertain themselves while he “kept them advised” of the latest warnings. And Seattleites will miss one of the smoothest broadcasters in local television, the late Steve Pool. We feel a sense of loyalty towards our favorite weathercasters.
At a time when trust in news is approaching historic lows, many Americans across several demographics still trust television meteorologists. An April 2023 poll by The Economist and YouGov found that The Weather Channel is the most trusted television news network in the United States. It’s the only news network that a majority of both Republicans and Democrats trust — which is notable, because the only other network that a majority of Republicans trust, per the same poll, is Fox News. This poll and a similar one from 2022 found that a majority of those who were surveyed trust The Weather Channel regardless of their race, ethnicity, income, age, gender, or level of education.
So why does the public trust weathercasters — especially since a prevalent stereotype of them is that they’re always wrong? And how can other journalists who cover things like politics borrow from weathercasters to do a better job of connecting with their audiences?
The stakes for finding these answers are high. Our society can suffer from serious side effects when the public doesn’t trust journalism, including an inability of the press to serve as an effective watchdog over our institutions; people deciding to not watch the news, which could lessen their awareness of things they should know; and people deciding to follow sources that spread misinformation. None of this benefits our democracy.
And the answers aren’t immediately obvious. Yes, meteorologists provide us with information that we can immediately apply and that might save our lives — but so do other journalists. A traffic reporter might have saved you 30 minutes on the way to work this morning, and a health reporter might have kept you from having salmonella for breakfast. And you might think it’s because weathercasters are apolitical, but they’ve actually drawn criticism and even received death threats for sharing their observations on the hot-button issue of climate change. They’ve also directly entered politics, running for office and winning.
We’ll increasingly consider these questions in 2024 while respecting the polygon in an era of extreme weather. We might find ourselves dodging floods in Philadelphia, or huffing wildfire smoke in Washington, or wondering why there’s a tropical storm in Southern California, of all places.
Is it climate change? Is it natural variation? Is it a combination of both? What do we know with certainty? And is that nasty storm coming toward us? We’ll look to the weather scientists on television to tell us. They’ll “keep us advised.” (By the way, that’s a drink if you’re keeping score in Norman.)
Christoph Mergerson is an assistant professor in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism at the University of Maryland.
