Public versus private. The eternal struggle.
The way that the article is written, it smacks of hit piece, probably drawn up by some PR flack employed by AccuWeather. Personally, I have no problem with private or public forecasts, and think that they can coexist. The problem with having public only type orgs (NOAA) is that the data, while free, might skew towards inaccuracy. The problem with a private only system is that the public would end up being charged for something that, arguably, should be free and is a public service paid by tax dollars. If this was indeed a hit piece written by someone at AccuWx, it wouldn't be their first attempt at neutering the NWS. After donating 5k to Rick Santorum a few years ago, he introduced a bill that would forbid the NWS from providing public forecasts. What I wonder is, what effect that would have on AccuWx's bottom line? Personally, I don't think your average Joe should have to pay to find what the weather is going to be, indirectly or directly. If a multi-billion dollar business needs assurance that it will indeed be windy and raining at 3:54PM, let them pay for a private company to assure that, if they are so inclined.
Bottom line, IMO: Both have their place in the grand scheme of things. To get rid of public weather forecasts would be a grave disservice to the citizenry.
--------------------
Grantness / First Year Met Student
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: INTERESTING ARTICLE FROM FOX NEWS
Edit
Reply
Quote
