Hurricane Season
Here we are near the end of the first month of this year's hurricane season. And sfsg, so far so good.
Although there have been estimates of numerous named storms this season, equal to or even more than last year, I have been saying that there will be fewer. I believe that this cycle topped out last year and will not approach that number again for a number of years.
Why? Last August I was in an examining room waiting for the doctor to make an appearance when I began looking through an old National Geographic. There was an article in there about the frequency of Atlantic hurricanes. According to the author water temperatures will increase for about fourteen or fifteen years on average, and then cool slowly over a similar amount of time. The total temperature variation is no more than about three degrees, but this can cause a very large difference in the number and intensity of storms in a given year. The article went on to say that we were already fourteen years into the current warming trend. However, it stressed that the period varies considerably. There was, it said, no reason to think the cooling would begin anytime soon. For a doctor's office, this magazine was fairly recent. I don't recall but think it was a 2004 issue.
Anyway, I'm now on record that the cycle is changing. Come December if we've had a much calmer hurricane season than 2005, doubtless I'll mention that fact on the blog. However, if not, I promose to 'fess up to that as well. Unless, of course, I've been washed or blown away.
I Finally Learned to Read a Modern Newspaper
Oh, yes, great news. I finally learned how to read the Houston Chronicle. I spent a lot of time yesterday with the Sunday paper, going through a lot of stories. My conclusion? On average the best place to begin is paragraph four. The first three contain anecdotal stuff. Paragraphs four and five have what passes for a lead. In six it's back to the anecdotal fluff, and, then, from about seven on it's pretty much a normal news story. If I don't find facts in paragraph four, I can read backward a little ways. There's no reason to go back too far as there may be nothing of value anywhere in the story anyway.
This rule served me well through all the sections I looked at. A front page article about Jeb Bush only had three paragraphs there. I had to hunt up the continuation on page 11 or whatever to get to the point of the story. Except for the experiment I was conducting, I wouldn't have gone to the trouble. The sports page was the same. The factual details of Andy Pettitte's stinker Saturday night (something that has become routine this season) were in paragraphs three, four and five. Great! Now I know about how far down in a story to look for the final score.
Those first three paragraphs, give or take, are how the Chronicle works its spin into a supposedly objective news story. And they have a politically correct agenda for almost everyting that comes up.
In the old days the lead was the lead. All the pertinent questions were answered there at the top of the story: who, what , where, when, whatever. No longer, not in the Houston paper.
Tell me, is it just the Chronicle? Or is this commonplace these days?
