Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'I can't really blame them for this - they are a news agency first and foremost - and it's gotten pretty clear over the last five to ten years that you don't make money by simply reporting the news. News (especially good news) is pretty perishable - it doesn't have much of a shelf life and it goes stale pretty fast. There has to be a crisis of some sort going on to make sure the viewer keeps coming back. And if there isn't a crisis, you'd better find one pretty darn fast.The Weather Channel has lost its way, according to John Coleman, who founded the channel in 1982.
Coleman told an audience at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change on March 3 in New York that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism.
“The Weather Channel had great promise, and that’s all gone now because they’ve made every mistake in the book on what they’ve done and how they’ve done it and it’s very sad,” Coleman said. “It’s now for sale and there’s a new owner of The Weather Channel will be announced – several billion dollars having changed hands in the near future. Let’s hope the new owners can recapture the vision and stop reporting the traffic, telling us what to think and start giving us useful weather information.”
The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.
That's why Global Warming is so good. It's long-term, nebulous, with supposed effect that can be described catastrophically - and you don't have to worry about whether it's 'real' or not, but it's good for ratings. What's not to like?
Aside for being pretty much blown out of proportion, that is.
J.