Abstract
Weather forecasts are a unique type of prediction rhetoric—science communication with inherent uncertainty and multiple potential interpretations from diverse audiences. When forecasts are wrong, audiences often turn their ire toward the weather forecaster. This rhetorical analysis considers image repair efforts of a meteorologist following a botched winter storm forecast. Implications for communication efforts of weather forecasters are offered, in addition to consideration of insight into the larger realm of the rhetoric of science.
Weather forecasts are a unique type of prediction rhetoric—science communication that is “unavoidably uncertain” (Morss, Demuth, & Lazo, 2008, p. 974; see also Handmer & Proudley, 2007) with message reception particularly influenced by linguistic and cultural factors (Pennesi, 2007) and readers’/listeners’ grasps of quantitative message elements (Handmer & Proudley, 2007). The messages/forecasts, too, are important, reflecting weathercasters’ civic responsibilities (see Doherty & Barnhurst, 2009). Daniels and Loggins (2010) have observed that destructive “weather events make it easy to understand why a television station’s commitment to local weather is vital for a community” (p. 23). And yet, despite a good deal of literature on the science of forecasts, fewer studies explore weather forecasts from a science communication perspective (Doherty & Barnhurst, 2009); as Wilson (2008) discovered, for example, the Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, at the time of his study, had never featured an article on television weather (1956-2008).
Likewise, rhetorical analyses of weather forecasts are rare (see Doherty & Barnhurst, 2009; Meister, 2001, for exceptions), with research instead exploring other issues such as usability/legibility models (Keul & Holzer, 2013). Rhetorical analyses, however, could offer a nuanced view of weather rhetoric, particularly if guided by a clarifying theoretical model. The premise of this analysis, then, is that an exploration of weather image repair rhetoric, through the lens of Benoit’s (1995, 2014) image repair typology, offers an instructive and theoretically relevant look at an important type of science communication.
This present study adds to the small but growing body of work in weather-related image repair analyses. As examples: Benoit and Henson (2009) and Liu (2007) examined President Bush’s image repair efforts after Hurricane Katrina, finding that Bush’s post-disaster efforts were largely ineffective. McCoy (2014) examined Northern Ireland Water’s image repair efforts after a destructive freeze/thaw winter incident, also finding their efforts largely unsuccessful. But the focus of this current investigation looks at a different type of weather situation—not the damage caused by a storm but the damage to credibility caused by a botched forecast of a storm.
In January 2014, Winter Storm Leon wreaked havoc on parts of the South. Hundreds of drivers and passengers were stranded on roads or involved in accidents, students and teachers slept in their schools, and shoppers camped in the aisles of stores. Most media forecasts failed to predict the storm’s severity or location. The day after being “called just about every name in the book” (Carlton, 2014b, para. 1) and receiving numerous critical tweets via Twitter (Carlton, 2014a), James Spann, Chief Meteorologist for ABC 33/40 in Birmingham, Alabama, penned an extended apology for his botched forecast, posted on the Alabama WX Weather Blog (available at: http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=78584). Titled “A Botched Forecast/Dose of Humility,” the blog post outlined Spann’s reaction to and explanation of his forecast. Deemed “Alabama’s best-known television meteorologist,” the botched forecast and his subsequent apology became national news, including a mention in the New York Times (Severson, 2014, para. 14).
The focus of this current project takes a closer look at an often-unexamined form of forecast rhetoric—the rhetoric following a botched forecast. This focus is in contrast to important studies that look at reception of forecast information (e.g., Ayton, 1988; Demuth, Lazo, & Morss, 2011; Demuth, Morrow, & Lazo, 2009; Murphy & Brown, 1983) and/or the terminology and other content of forecasts (e.g., Murphy & Brown, 1983). But studying post-forecast rhetoric is also important in considering public perceptions of weather forecast credibility after incidents that might lower such perceptions, that is, after a botched forecast. Morss et al. (2008) observed, “The communication of weather forecast uncertainty will evolve through an iterative, dynamic process that connects learning from forecast recipients with product development” (p. 975), and Powell and O’Hair (2008) point to the importance of trust in heeding weather advice (see also Silver, 2014). A better understanding of the communicative strategies that are used to restore such trust, then, is an important focus for science communication in general and weather prediction rhetoric in particular.
Material and Methods
Benoit’s (1995, 2014) typology of image repair offers a way to identify and classify image repair efforts following a perceived offense. Five strategies (denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, mortification, and corrective action) are further divided into a number of distinct tactics, as outlined below. These strategies and tactics, or a combination of strategies and tactics, are employed to repair perceptions of credibility if a rhetor is accused of (1) being responsible for (2) something offensive (Benoit, 1995, 2014).
The strategy of denial has two possible tactics: simple denial (dismissing the accusation outright) and shifting the blame (implicating someone else for the offense). Evading responsibility can be achieved through four tactics: provocation (arguing that the offense was a reasonable response to another offense), defeasibility (arguing a lack of control over the situation), accident, and good intentions. The strategy of reducing offensiveness has six possible tactics: bolstering (putting the emphasis on the rhetor’s positive characteristics or achievements), minimization (arguing that the offense is not as offensive as perceived), differentiation (comparing the act in question with worse acts), transcendence (broadening the context of the act), and attacking the accuser. Corrective action offers either a solution or changes that prevent the offense from happening again. Mortification is an expression of regret (e.g., an apology). (See Benoit, 1995, 2014, for more thorough explanations of the typology, including preceding scholarship.) Benoit’s typology has seen extensive use in analyses of sport communication (e.g., Compton & Compton, 2017), public relations (e.g., Harlow, Brantley, & Harlow, 2011), politics (e.g., Anagondahalli, 2013), and corporate crisis communication (e.g., Maiorescu, 2016), among others.
James Spann’s (2014) blog post, “A Botched Forecast/Dose of Humility,” was read repeatedly by the author, and strategies and tactics of image repair were identified using Benoit’s (2014) image repair typology. These strategies and tactics are identified next, along with sample rhetoric, and strategies and tactics explicitly avoided in the statement are also noted.
Results
Explicit Rejection of Denial and Reducing Offensiveness
It is not unusual for a rhetor to use only a few image repair strategies and tactics. What is more unusual about Spann’s (2014) message is that he explicitly rejected some strategies and tactics, by name. Not only that, but Spann began his message with these acknowledgements. Consider, for example, his direct refusal to attempt denial: simple denial or shifting the blame. After referencing a similar missed forecast from 1982, he argues: “With the experience and maturity that should come with a long tenure in my position, you would think that kind of error would not happen again, [b]ut, it did” (para. 1). Later, directly referencing the attacks, he states: “Yep, over the last 12 hours lots of social media vitriol has been directed at me, and it is deserved” (para. 8). In statements like these, Spann does more than ignore charges of his responsibility—he accepts them.
A little later in his message, Spann (2014) explicitly rejects the second tactic of denial: shifting blame. He writes, People who are tired, hungry, in strange places trying to sleep away from their familiar and children, need to vent. Do NOT [emphasis in original] vent at school officials or your boss. They make decisions on weather forecasts, and what they got was bad information. I am the one to blame. (para. 8)
Spann’s (2014) rhetoric, then, not only avoided directly denying the charges, but instead, emphatically admitted to his mistakes and denied that anyone else should share the blame. As with his opening strategy of rejecting denial, giving voice to his critics and accepting blame, Spann makes an explicit rejection of shifting blame.
Spann (2014) also rejects the tactic of minimization (a strategy of reducing offensiveness). He notes, “There was clear human suffering as a result of my bad forecast” (para. 7). After a reference to lost lives during this storm, Spann interjects, I also believe there was loss of life on April 27, 2011 as a direct result of communication failure on my [watch]. Despite our knowledge of all 62 tornadoes that day well in advance . . . 252 people in my state died, which is totally unacceptable.” (para. 11)
As with denial, Spann not only avoids minimization, but also, explicitly, rejects it, mentioning the direst of consequences of missed weather forecasts—death and “human suffering.”
Spann (2014) also chooses to not explicitly attack his accusers. In fact, on the contrary, he thanks one of his “attackers.” Spann reprints “an example of what I am seeing in the ‘email inbox’ this morning” (para. 9): Looks like you got it wrong yesterday. . . . How can you guys be so badly off as 100’s still sit in their schools and 100’s remain in their cars on highways and [no] telling how many have had to leave their cars stranded and knock on strangers[’] doors for shelter while others have paid the ultimate price trying to drive? . . . Has everything with your career over the past years gone to your head? . . . What a shame as I think of the people still out there and the ones who are dead . . . (para. 9)
Spann follows this excerpt with: “The criticism is valid, and one I will take to heart. I appreciate her taking the time to write, and I mean that” (para. 9). As with the other rejected strategies, Spann seems to take his rhetoric one step further toward avoiding denial, minimization, or attacking accusers. With the latter, he praises instead of attacks them—even when the criticism is strongly worded.
Shades of Bolstering and Defeasibility
Spann’s (2014) post did point to some strengths of his forecast (“As is sometimes the case, the forecast was actually good on the synoptic scale . . . ,” para. 2). He briefly alludes to some positive attributes of himself, including that he was traveling during the weather because he was “going to do a school program on meteorology” (para. 4)—another subtle yet important detail that could function to enhance Spann’s credibility by mentioning his community service.
Spann’s (2014) blog also speaks to some issues of defeasibility, or a lack of information, which falls under the broader strategy of evading responsibility. “I will say,” Spann writes, “I have never seen this kind of impact on roads with 1 to 2 inches of snow in Alabama in my 35 years as a professional meteorologist” (para. 5). Here, Spann is able to speak to some bolstering (“my 35 years as a professional meteorologist”), a tactic under the strategy of reducing offensiveness, while at the same time, Spann emphasizes the unprecedented nature of the weather event, which fits neatly into the category of defeasibility.
Corrective Action and Mortification
Spann (2014) ends his post with corrective action and mortification. He commits to “work to be sure it doesn’t happen again” (para. 12), to “do long hours of review on this one” (para. 13), and to “keep working to get better and stronger daily” (para. 16). Such approaches fall into the category of corrective action—not as a way to resolve the current situation, but instead, as a way to try to prevent reoccurrences of this type of offense (i.e., a “botched” forecast). He compares his actions to that of a football coach, subtitling this section of his blog posting, “LIKE A FOOTBALL COACH” (para. 12). “Football coaches don’t win every game,” he writes, “and we don’t get every forecast right” (para. 12). Indeed, football coaches make similar rhetorical choices to repair image during losing seasons (Compton & Compton, 2014). Note, too, that Spann does not promise that the mistake will not happen again. Instead, he writes that it will: “Won’t be the last bad forecast I write, but I will keep working to get better and stronger daily” (para. 16). He adds, too, that “this kind of thing doesn’t ‘get me down,’ it energizes me” (para. 16). He combined this strategy of corrective action with a clear, straightforward apology: “So, an apology from me for a botched forecast” (para. 16). Spann’s mortification strategy seeks to ask forgiveness for the perceived offense.
Discussion
In a retrospective published about 1 year after the winter storm, Carlton (2015) noted that in the aftermath of the botched forecast, Spann “went from meteorological rock star to the most vilified person in Central Alabama” (para. 14). As this analysis shows, Spann’s response was a contrite apology that had some unconventional features of image repair.
One of the most striking things about Spann’s apology is that he not only avoided some strategies of image repair, but instead, explicitly and forcefully rejected them. Spann did not just deny the basis of the image attack—he admitted it. Spann did not attack his accusers, but instead, complimented them. Spann did not shift blame, but instead, directly encouraged his readers/viewers not to shift the blame. Spann did not minimize the botched forecast, but instead, highlighted the significant stakes. Of course, Spann finds himself with more rhetorical latitude than other image repair rhetors, such as corporate rhetors who must often consider issues of legal culpability when making statements following errors (Benoit, 1995). On the other hand, much like an entertainer who must keep fans supportive (see, e.g., Compton & Miller, 2011), we can assume that Spann felt pressure to keep his viewers watching and his credibility intact. Regardless of Spann’s motives, his use of explicit rejections of certain image repair strategies and tactics is an interesting effort, and an approach to image repair that warrants future research in other contexts (e.g., politics, public relations).
Although there is some evidence of bolstering and defeasibility, the main focus of this image repair effort is on accepting blame, magnifying the stakes, apologizing, and promising corrective action. With the latter, we find consistency with a general theme of image repair work: When a rhetor is responsible, it is often best to acknowledge the error and commit to fixing it or outlining why it will not happen again (Benoit, 1995, 2014).
Toward the end of his post, Spann (2014) writes of humility, and the lack of humility in meteorology: Humility is missing in our science. There are many things we don’t know, and many things we can’t do. Just about the time you think you are infallible, you will be brought to your knees. For the ones in meteorology and climate that say ‘I could be wrong,’ I will listen and respect their opinion. But, for those that claim no error, we all know their time is coming. (para. 15)
While aspects of this strategy might function to bolster Spann’s image—embracing a value like humility—it also goes on the attack against his field, perhaps reflecting a more combative tone than most of his statement. As with Spann’s explicit rejection of some image repair strategies, future research should consider effects of shift of tone in other image repair efforts, in other contexts.
We should also approach Spann’s image repair efforts in the larger context of science communication in general and weather forecasting in particular. As Handmer and Proudley (2007) have observed: “Weather forecasts are inherently uncertain, and this makes the communication task more challenging as forecasters attempt to communicate information about the predicted event, and the uncertainties surrounding the prediction” (p. 79). Interacting with this inherent uncertainty is a unique rhetorical situation: “Weather news employs a structure similar to other scientific discourse, in which the scientist speaks as a messenger of Nature, but the audience is invisible” (Doherty & Barnhurst, 2009, p. 222). In these narratives, the weathercaster sometimes projects control of the weather, which certainly affects the ethos of the weathercaster (Doherty & Barnhurst, 2009)—and the weather presenter/meteorologist can play a factor in viewership of a forecast (Daniels & Loggins, 2010). We would imagine, then, that if a viewer sees a forecaster as in control of dangerous weather, and the forecaster is a well-known, identifiable figure, the stakes for image damage after botched forecasts are remarkably high.
It would also be of interest to explore whether weather forecasters could preempt image attacks, prior to inevitable wrong forecasts. The rhetorical approach of image prepare (Compton, 2017) might be one option, whereas a rhetor raises and refutes anticipated attacks before stronger attacks are launched, in line with the inoculation theory of resistance to influence (McGuire, 1964), with refutations following the framework of Benoit’s (1995, 2014) image repair typology. Some evidence suggests that weather forecasters do frame aspects of their forecasts, for example, longer-range predictions, in terms of uncertainty (Demuth et al., 2009), and the idea of preemption is reflected in other extant crisis communication analyses, including the work of Sandman (2006). Other analyses point to instances when rhetors did not emphasize uncertainty in crisis situations (e.g., Dalrymple, Young, & Tully, 2016). Future research should continue to explore these interesting intersections of chronology, transparency, and uncertainty. Of particular note would be if pretreatment messaging could boost not just resistance to influence but also critical thinking from the audience of weather forecasts, something supported by recent science communication work (Cook, Ellerton, & Kinkead, 2018).
Finally, future work could also continue to compare and contrast Benoit’s (1995, 2014) image repair typology with other crisis communication frameworks, like the crisis and emergency risk communication model (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005), with forecast and post-forecast rhetoric. The crisis and emergency risk communication model seems particularly well suited for considering this blending of risk and crisis communication, with forecast (risk communication) and post-forecast (crisis communication, in the event of a botched forecast) rhetoric. Strategies could be compared and contrasted, including the efficacy of denial through the lenses of the corresponding typologies and models. In this and other directions for work, research certainly needs to be expanded beyond the single case.
Conclusion
“It is surprising that so central a player in everyday news [weathercasters] has enjoyed little scholarly attention,” Doherty and Barnhurst (2009) observed (see also Demuth et al., 2009), and I agree. I am also encouraged by what seems to be a growing interest in looking at this unique form of science communication from a communication framework (e.g., Bloodhart, Maibach, Myers, & Zhao, 2015; Daniels & Loggins, 2010). Rhetorical analyses of the public relations efforts of weather forecasts—in addition to quantitative and qualitative work—helps us to better understand science communication in general and weather forecasters in particular—“perhaps the most visible and least understood science communicators in our culture” (Wilson, 2008, p. 85).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
