It is always interesting reading avalanche-related news. Some of it is good -- a way to help get important information out to the public. And some of it, well....

I empathize with the media. However multidisciplinary avalanche science is, working in the media must demand general knowledge of many, many, many topics. But every so often, an article comes along with a phrasing that shows a lack of understanding of how avalanches work.

Most commonly, erroneous media assume that avalanche conditions are more long-term then they really are (they actually change by the day, or even hour) or are more dangerous than they really are (yes, people can ski safely in select places even when the danger is High). Here are two examples over the past month, meant for humour only, as I'm sure (and hope) someone out there is also chuckling over my writing:

• An example implying that avalanche hazard can be consistent across large geographic areas:
  
  Take care: Avalanche danger is 'considerable' on slopes statewide
  
  Although the content of the article does a nice job of discussing specific areas where the considerable rating is applied, the title implies that everywhere across Montana has the same rating.

• And my all-time favourite, from the BBC:
  
  Avalanche risk in Scotland raised by crystals
  
  The title probably says it all. It's actually a nice highlight for surface hoar, but the title always makes me say "as opposed to?"

These article titles simply caught my eye. Overall, the relationship between the source of avalanche information and the media is improving dramatically, and this is much to the media's credit. It is good to see that the articles above are the wost of it.

And, if you are looking for Canadian media information straight from the source, try the Canadian Avalanche Centre's Media Page, or, better yet, their Avalanche Bulletins.