Absurd attempts by the press to be "neutral"

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/02/us/severe-weather/?hpt=us_c1

No, you idiot, that is not an "apparent tornado." Its a tornado.

This is not a "possible" tornado. Its a tornado!

http://www.weather.com/weather/vide...eo-possible-tornado-26323?"=#loc=41/169/26323

Giant rotating masses of wind and clouds that wreak horrific destruction are called "tornadoes."

Unlike crime suspects, they are not "alleged." They won't sue you, I promise. They won't even come and tear your roof off just for calling them tornadoes.

yet when it comes to political topics they don't even do a descent job of pretending to be nuetral

We are living in a theatre of the absurd. Have they reported the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern yet?

Maybe not this case, but there are cases where "apparent tornadoes" are not actually tornadoes. A tornado is a specific technical term. Sometimes they will send investigators out to determine if it was a tornado or not.

Derichos, straight line outdrafts, and so on. If your weather channel link's tornado did not actually touch the ground, its only a funnel cloud.

^^^This. The weather people get touchy about their technical terms.

Well, consider me smacked down.