CALL ME SNAKE

My wife knew one of the local weatherman (call him "Eddie") as a kid growing up in her neighborhood, where she grew up as well, if that makes any sense. When Eddie made the leap to the big time, from weekend weatherman to the 11:00 news, I watched his forecasts religiously. He's improved his delivery a lot over the years, avoiding some of the missteps (awkward choreography, blocking the view on the weather charts, for example, and other no-no's), and overcoming the stiffness that plagued his act in the early days. I feel unfaithful saying this but for the last year or so, I've been watching his Channel Five rival, "Harvey," instead. Not for any good reason. I mean, I can't remember Eddie blowing a big forecast and, as a result, my big picnic got rained out. But for some reason, again not based on any sound statistical analysis, I have more confidence in Harvey, who's a bit older (though not OLD), and looks more like a weatherman, whatever that means. I can't say Harvey's forecasts are more reliable, and in fact they may be more fallible, but for me, at least, they have the ring of truth. When it comes down to it, he may not know a thing about meteorology but he's more comfortable on camera--and perhaps more comfortable in his own skin, as they say. So for now I'm sticking with Channel Five.

That said, I'd like to see all the stations reduce their forecasts from the standard five minutes to 30 seconds or less. And we don't need a weather forecast three times in 30 minutes--a preview forecast followed by the "main" forecast and then the wrapup. Nor do we need our weathermen to be--or feebly attempt to be--standup comedians. Personally, I can do without the patter. Just a forecast, and preferably an accurate one, would be fine.