Oklahoma Meteorology and Digital Culture Debates

In Oklahoma, weather is big business. In the Spring, when the risk of severe weather is the highest, it is not unusual to spend a Saturday night on the sofa eating Ben and Jerry's and watching wall-to-wall weather coverage. Weather coverage has spawned its own television entertainment culture in the Oklahoma City market. Everyone here knows about the Mike Morgan Severe Weather Tie (which has its own Facebook page), and the Gary England Drinking Game. Storm chasers like Reed Timmer, Val Castor, Alan Broerse (the spelling of whose name I did not have to look up) are household names. Meteorologists are bonafide celebrities, consistently the first T.V. personalities in our market to earn verified twitter status. Weather coverage is, therefore, incredibly competitive. This means that it is often very dramatic.

The competitive and dramatic nature of weather forecasting in Oklahoma, combined with the serendipitous co-occurance of the busiest time for severe weather and Spring sweeps means that local T.V. networks are vying for viewership through use of high drama, employing scored of spotters, helicopters (one station brags that it has two helicopters chasing storms), and well-equiped weather centers. Locals, therefore, often accuse T.V. meteorologists of overdramatizing the weather in order to gain ratings. These accusations range from the everyday as any prediction that doesn't come true becomes evidence that meteorologists were "over-hyping" all along to much more serious suggestions that meteorologists' overdramatized warnings have caused deaths. Because of this, it has become fashionable for jaded Okies to distrust the local network affiliates for their weather coverage (though we still find ourselves glued to the television every time it "feels" a certain way outside).

Of course, such distrust is not new. Just as concerns about "liberal media agendas"and the like led to the explosion of alternative media such as talk radio, blogs, social media, and so on, so too have these concerns led some to search for their weather coverage from alternative sources. (I myself prefer to stick to the National Weather Service's predictions when I start to sniff sensationalized weather forecasts.)

Into this mix came meteorologist Aaron Tuttle, a controversial and even divisive figure in Oklahoma City media. Tuttle is a former KOCO-TV meteorologist who "decided to retire" from television in 2007 to work as a meteorologist for the FAA. He is a celebrated, vilified, and parodied figure who runs a website, appears in auto dealership ads, and posts mirror selfies of his abdominal muscles. According to his social media sites, he still "works for the federal government," but he also charges $200 per appearance to speak in public and offers a "free" web app for which he accepts donations. He has a large following in OKC, mainly, it seems, because of distrust in local media, and his own critiques of local media for their sensational broadcasts.

It's ironic, then, that he stepped into serious controversy when he made this prediction on May 17th.

As I write this at the end of the date in question, I look out at clear skies and the setting sun. Obviously, it's not unusual for meteorologists to get it wrong. It happens so often, it is a cliche (not to mention, a Nicholas Cage movie). But this forecast was different for a couple of reasons. One was simply that it was SO wrong. Every other forecaster in the market, including the National Weather Service forecasted a 20% chance of a few scattered thunderstorms, some of which could become "marginally severe." Indeed, a few popped up in Eastern Oklahoma in the early afternoon, then fizzled out as it cooled and they lost energy. There was never, according to any other meteorologist, any tornado threat.  Apparently, when Tuttle made his forecast, he failed to account for a very obvious factor (something about low level moisture maybe?) that stabilized the atmosphere to the point that tornados where simply not a concern. It was an oversight so obvious to people who know what they're doing that meteorologists across the country questioned Tuttle's motives for making the prediction.

Even early in the day, before we could know for sure whether or not Tuttle was right or wrong, meteorologists were trying to fix the damage his forecast was causing as panicky Oklahomans shared, retweeted, and generally freaked out about his dire suggestion that tornados of the "EF4/5 kind"were possible. Early in the day, according to the alternative media website "The Lost Ogle," Emily Sutton was challenging his forecast on social media. Marc Weinberg, an OU trained meteorologist in Kentucky went so far as to suggest that Tuttle should be held accountable, comparing his irresponsible forecast to yelling "fire" in a  crowded theatre. The forecast was apparently so obviously flawed that even a Meteorology undergrad studying at OU implored his twitter followers not to trust Aaron Tuttle.

For these forecasters, Tuttle's forecast could only be explained by one other interesting feature if the above post. It is this phrase: "Link to donate to keep free." Aaron Tuttle, a meteorologist whose only public exposure is now through social media (he is called an "internet meteorologist" by his T.V. competitors) has nearly 94,000 Facebook followers. That number has jumped by more than 6,000 in the past two days, as followers shared his post out of concern for a tornado outbreak akin to the Moore Tornadoes of May 3,1999 and May 20, 2013.

My interest in this incident is that it is an interesting example of debate between established forms of media and new media forms. Here is a clear, everyday example of the debate between what is referred to in the study of rhetoric as Bookspace/Cyberspace, or Web 1.0/Web 2.0. Cynthia Selfe discusses this debate as being between people who think of "technology as bane" and those who think of "technology as boon."

The proliferation of alternative media forms has been made possible in large part by the "technology as boon" mindset of much of contemporary culture. Technology, especially Web 2.0, has often been credited with democratizing knowledge. Those who are suspicious of "bookspace"
see old forms of media as propping up old systems where knowledge was reserved for the few and powerful. They see old media as inherently biased, carefully crafting facts to support particular ideologies, or to pander to advertisers and editors.

Yet, interestingly, people who are so suspicious of these old media forms seem to often accept New Media as somehow value neutral, as if those engaged in New Media have no biases, ideologies, or motivations other than complete truth. We are often quick to accept that those engaged in digital or other forms of alternative rhetoric are benevolent revolutionaries, trying to make their prophetic voices heard against an oppressive establishment.

But this controversy should remind us that this is not necesarily true. Rhetoric in any form is never value neutral. We can never accept it uncritically. Here, in fact, we see a definite strength of established, old media. At KOCO, if Tuttle is this irresponsible, he is out of a job (which makes one wonder how truly voluntary his "retirement" was). After all, old media, with all its problems, has a reputation to maintain. There is a system of checks and balances in place to, at the very least, see that incorrect predictions are just wrong because sometimes you get it wring and not because person making the prediction was wholly irresponsible. After all,  when it was discovered that Jayson Blair had plagiarized and fabricated stories in the New York Times, it was a huge controversy, and it tarnished the reputation of one of the most established and revered media establishments in the world.  When it happens on some right wing blog (like, daily), no one bats an eye. Yet we continually distrust these established forms and accept uncritically new forms, much the same way we challenge our doctors with things we read on WebMD.

If we are to learn media literacy in the Digital Age, we must learn to have at least as much healthy skepticism for New Media forms as we had for the old forms when we started seeking out alternative sources. We must learn to question why Aaron Tuttle would make such predictions and in the same paragraph ask for donations. We must learn to ask why he is not working in television anymore in a market where good meteorologists stand to make a lot of money. We must learn not to so quickly accept that he "retired" because he was tired of fame (which seems to be the suggestion he makes in this explanation). We must ask what his motives are before we share his Facebook posts or buy his weather ap. Or rather, offer it for free with a donation.