Storm Chasing and Media Coverage Ethics

[wxman9]

So describing a satellite shot of a storm as "impressive", which is what "sexy" or "hawt" is meaning in this case, is equivalent to meteorology crossing into someone's sex life?

Those aren't words that pop into my head when discussing weather phenomena. I suppose I may be confused about their meanings. I've never found anything that causes great suffering to be sexy, impressive and awe-inspiring yes, but never sexy.

[mappy]

"sexy" has the literal meaning (arousing of sexual desire) and there is a slang definitions, ie. highly appealing, interesting, exciting...

 

Many of us hard core weather nerds use terms like "sexy" "hot" and stuff All.The.Time. when describing certain aspects of weather. An amazing radar image for example... most of us snow weenies in the MA forum would say it was "hot" or "sexy".

 

If anyone has a hard time separating the two meanings, then I'm not sure what to tell you...

[mappy]

*that "hard" was not to be taken sexual

[JoMo]

OK, I'm off my rocker, though some might argue that the relevance lies in believing violence and the resulting destruction of life, whether man-made or natural, is a form of entertainment. With regard to fetishizing, any number of posts in this forum have referred to satellite images, etc...as "sexy", "hawt" so on, so forth.  Am I really off my rocker because my fascination with meteorology doesn't cross over into my sex life?

 

Weather happens. You can't stop it. "Hope" or "Wishing" for something to happen or not to happen has no relevance as that isn't going to change things.

 

An EF-4/5 tornado passed less than 3 blocks away from me, killed 161 people in my town including a couple of people I am related to. It was the most terrifying experience I have ever gone through. With that being said, I've watched Jeff Piotrowski's video chase of it over a dozen times. I also found all of the videos of it on youtube that I could find, taken from people with cell phones and other devices. I can't explain why, but I found that other people who were directly in the tornado did the exact same thing.

 

The media coverage and 'personal stories' of people that survived or lost loved ones raised awareness of the situation and helped bring in over 100,000 volunteers from across the nation and the world as well as numerous donations.

 

Do I ever want that to happen again to anyone anywhere? Hell no. It's awful. Do I have any control on whether it happens again? No, I do not.

 

So I fail to grasp what the point of your argument is? Are you saying that when disasters happen we should just ignore them?

[Ed Lizard]

I appreciate a good thunderstorm passing my neighborhood.  I don't chase because of financial contraints and other responsibilities ( I also live in the wrong part of the country to tornado chase), but I don't appreciate a good thunderstorm with dramatic clouds, gusty winds and lightning because I'm hoping it drops a tree on someone and kills them. 

Ditto an ice storm.  I get so excited if the models suggest it.  Someone will probably be seriously injured driving when they shouldn't, especially in parts of the country (like here) where snow and ice are a twice per decade event, but enjoying an ice storm isn't hoping someone gets hurt in a car wreck.

 

 

Josh admitted he chases for the thrill, but he does gather data, and he isn't peddling videos of corpses in the streets for the truly creepy to get off on.  He is showing actual hurricane force winds.  Part of the thrill is also trying to intercept the eye or at least eye-wall.  iCyclone doesn't do 'disaster porn, and It isn't "faces of death" by any means.

[WNash]

"sexy" has the literal meaning (arousing of sexual desire) and there is a slang definitions, ie. highly appealing, interesting, exciting...

Many of us hard core weather nerds use terms like "sexy" "hot" and stuff All.The.Time. when describing certain aspects of weather. An amazing radar image for example... most of us snow weenies in the MA forum would say it was "hot" or "sexy".

If anyone has a hard time separating the two meanings, then I'm not sure what to tell you...

As I said before: people with serious interests in other potentially deadly phenomena don't sexualize their interests. Tumors aren't "sexy" to researchers. Earthquakes aren't "sexy" to geologists. And if they do use that language they have the social decency to keep it private. Combined with the thrill seeking and release and the market for extreme weather video production/consumption, we have a pattern that to an objective viewer looks far less like other personal interests pursued by most hobbyists and more like a pathology.

As I said with militaria collectors (my father in law is one)-- they are aware of how fraught with additional meaning Nazi artifacts are, and have a different protocol/vocabulary for handling them. They would never, for instance, call them "sexy" the way they might call a rare US Army artifact, because they are very self aware. We could learn from them.

[wxman9]

Weather happens. You can't stop it. "Hope" or "Wishing" for something to happen or not to happen has no relevance as that isn't going to change things.

 

An EF-4/5 tornado passed less than 3 blocks away from me, killed 161 people in my town including a couple of people I am related to. It was the most terrifying experience I have ever gone through. With that being said, I've watched Jeff Piotrowski's video chase of it over a dozen times. I also found all of the videos of it on youtube that I could find, taken from people with cell phones and other devices. I can't explain why, but I found that other people who were directly in the tornado did the exact same thing.

 

The media coverage and 'personal stories' of people that survived or lost loved ones raised awareness of the situation and helped bring in over 100,000 volunteers from across the nation and the world as well as numerous donations.

 

Do I ever want that to happen again to anyone anywhere? Hell no. It's awful. Do I have any control on whether it happens again? No, I do not.

 

So I fail to grasp what the point of your argument is? Are you saying that when disasters happen we should just ignore them?

Understood with regard to you and your family's experience in your own community and the benefits of media coverage. Of course you chose to live with the aftermath, you didn't take the option of bailing out the next afternoon, flying away and selling video footage of your dead and bloated neighbors' bodies to media outlets. 

[Chicago Storm]

Understood with regard to you and your family's experience in your own community and the benefits of media coverage. Of course you chose to live with the aftermath, you didn't take the option of bailing out the next afternoon, flying away and selling video footage of your dead and bloated neighbors' bodies to media outlets. 

lol

[WNash]

Weather happens. You can't stop it. "Hope" or "Wishing" for something to happen or not to happen has no relevance as that isn't going to change things.

An EF-4/5 tornado passed less than 3 blocks away from me, killed 161 people in my town including a couple of people I am related to. It was the most terrifying experience I have ever gone through. With that being said, I've watched Jeff Piotrowski's video chase of it over a dozen times. I also found all of the videos of it on youtube that I could find, taken from people with cell phones and other devices. I can't explain why, but I found that other people who were directly in the tornado did the exact same thing.

The media coverage and 'personal stories' of people that survived or lost loved ones raised awareness of the situation and helped bring in over 100,000 volunteers from across the nation and the world as well as numerous donations.

Do I ever want that to happen again to anyone anywhere? Hell no. It's awful. Do I have any control on whether it happens again? No, I do not.

So I fail to grasp what the point of your argument is? Are you saying that when disasters happen we should just ignore them?

I'm obsessed with this stuff too! Otherwise I wouldn't be here! But I have a problem with our discourse, the chaser video industry, our lack of self awareness, and our anger at feeling criticized. NOBODY is making the argument that we can't take an interest in the weather-- even in extreme weather events. So you have sort of a straw man thing going on there.

[andyhb]

Understood with regard to you and your family's experience in your own community and the benefits of media coverage. Of course you chose to live with the aftermath, you didn't take the option of bailing out the next afternoon, flying away and selling video footage of your dead and bloated neighbors' bodies to media outlets. 

 

This is ridiculous, quit speaking for people when you don't have a damn clue what's going on.

[wxman9]

This is ridiculous, quit speaking for people when you don't have a damn clue what's going on.

I'll say no more and defer to you, as only you have inside knowledge of what's really going on. Someone who's lived in Manhattan for the past 20 years could never have a valid story regarding disaster and it's misuse as a means of generating profit.

 

Fortunately, we've never been ground zero for a disaster, whether man made or otherwise, so I could not possibly know what it's like to lose friends and family while others shot video.

[WNash]

I appreciate a good thunderstorm passing my neighborhood. I don't chase because of financial contraints and other responsibilities ( I also live in the wrong part of the country to tornado chase), but I don't appreciate a good thunderstorm with dramatic clouds, gusty winds and lightning because I'm hoping it drops a tree on someone and kills them.

Ditto an ice storm. I get so excited if the models suggest it. Someone will probably be seriously injured driving when they shouldn't, especially in parts of the country (like here) where snow and ice are a twice per decade event, but enjoying an ice storm isn't hoping someone gets hurt in a car wreck.

Josh admitted he chases for the thrill, but he does gather data, and he isn't peddling videos of corpses in the streets for the truly creepy to get off on. He is showing actual hurricane force winds. Part of the thrill is also trying to intercept the eye or at least eye-wall. iCyclone doesn't do 'disaster porn, and It isn't "faces of death" by any means.

I don't argue against being excited by the weather -- it excites me too. None of us obviously want people to be hurt or worse, although we know it is probably inevitable. I think we should try to constrain our enthusiasm to reflect cultural sensitivities, and one of the ways to do that would be to stop using sexualized language about extreme weather. Being in awe is one thing, but implying that you are turned on by it is another thing entirely. Don't you agree I have a point here?

To the second point you make: profiting off extreme weather videos is really morally objectionable. Yeah, there's not a damn thing Josh could do to save 10000 lives, and he may have in fact saved a few people the other day-- a morally righteous act, if not necessarily heroic (let's not dumb down the notion of bravery here). But here's the deal: the hugeness of this storm-- and its body count and extent of destruction, to be blunt-- drives the market for the videos. The interest is higher BECAUSE so many people died. Death = higher price, more publicity, etc. Combine this with the fact that Josh is the #1 thrill seeker, the #1 sexualizer of storms, and is totally unreflective of the ethics of his position, and he is in a very precarious moral position.

[WNash]

Fortunately, we've never been ground zero for a disaster, whether man made or otherwise, so I could not possibly know what it's like to lose friends and family while others shot video.

Yeah, I lived in Brooklyn and was commuting to my job downtown that day-- this comparison already crossed my mind too. I think it made me really aware of public suffering, and the poor ends to which it can be put.

[andyhb]

I'll say no more and defer to you, as only you have inside knowledge of what's really going on. Someone who's lived in Manhattan for the past 20 years could never have an valid story regarding disaster and it's misuse as a means of generating profit.

 

Fortunately, we've never been ground zero for a disaster, whether man made or otherwise, so I could not possibly know what it's like to lose friends and family while others shot video.

 

You literally said Josh and co were fetishizing and sexualizing gore. Why don't you consider the media (CNN, etc.) fetish for violence and inflating death tolls before accurate figures have been released, among other things? 

[WNash]

You literally said Josh and co were fetishizing and sexualizing gore. Why don't you consider the media (CNN, etc.) fetish for violence and inflating death tolls before accurate figures have been released, among other things?

You're deflecting. The death toll estimates are being provided by official sources:

"Regional police chief Elmer Soria said he was briefed by Leyte provincial Gov. Dominic Petilla late Saturday and told there were about 10,000 deaths in the province, mostly by drowning and from collapsed buildings. The governor's figure was based on reports from village officials in areas where Typhoon Haiyan slammed Friday."

"Tacloban city administrator Tecson Lim said that the death toll in the city alone 'could go up to 10,000.' Tacloban is the Leyte provincial capital of 200,000 people and the biggest city on Leyte Island."

http://www.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78123173/

Why is it in your interest to change the subject?

[sojitodd]

I appreciate a good thunderstorm passing my neighborhood.  I don't chase because of financial contraints and other responsibilities ( I also live in the wrong part of the country to tornado chase), but I don't appreciate a good thunderstorm with dramatic clouds, gusty winds and lightning because I'm hoping it drops a tree on someone and kills them. 

Ditto an ice storm.  I get so excited if the models suggest it.  Someone will probably be seriously injured driving when they shouldn't, especially in parts of the country (like here) where snow and ice are a twice per decade event, but enjoying an ice storm isn't hoping someone gets hurt in a car wreck.

 

 

Josh admitted he chases for the thrill, but he does gather data, and he isn't peddling videos of corpses in the streets for the truly creepy to get off on.  He is showing actual hurricane force winds.  Part of the thrill is also trying to intercept the eye or at least eye-wall.  iCyclone doesn't do 'disaster porn, and It isn't "faces of death" by any means.

I agree he said he chases for the thrill. The thrill of the storm. It has nothing to do with death and gore to him(you seem to understand this). He had to go to the storm wherever it was. I am sure that if he could have had a say in it, he would rather have experienced the storm in a completely isolated area with no communities in harms way. He did the best he could, and got the hell out of there-better than staying and getting caught with the rest with no water, food, etc. and needing assistance himself.He admitted he learned from this experience about not having medical supplies, medical training, etc. in regard to one of their own getting injured(another reason to get out fast). His videos are really about the wind and force of the storm-not 'death porn' or anything like that.  He got in, did no harm, did some good, and then got out. What was he supposed to do? He had an injured colleague and they are not trained medics/first responders loaded down with supplies-and how would their small group have distributed that aid-to 220,000 people? I guess he could have stayed and, in hunger and thirst with a colleague dying from sepsis from an infected wound and gathered bodies and dug graves...I mean it seems like that is the only thing that would have satisfied some people.

 

The real questions that should be asked are:

 

with this storm coming in at this intensity, why were so many people still in low lying areas? Why were thousands still on that lowlying airport peninsula? Why was there a one story evacuation center set up there where many people drowned? 

 

Did the message about the intensity of this storm and the possibility of a huge storm surge get out or not, and if it did, why did people not react to it and get to higher ground?

 

Why was the Philippine gov't not prepared (apparently) for this when they knew it was going to be the worst hit they have ever had?

 

Basically, why did so many people die (most apparently from surge) and how can it be prevented in the future there?

[andyhb]

You're deflecting. The death toll estimates are being provided by official sources:

"Regional police chief Elmer Soria said he was briefed by Leyte provincial Gov. Dominic Petilla late Saturday and told there were about 10,000 deaths in the province, mostly by drowning and from collapsed buildings. The governor's figure was based on reports from village officials in areas where Typhoon Haiyan slammed Friday."

"Tacloban city administrator Tecson Lim said that the death toll in the city alone 'could go up to 10,000.' Tacloban is the Leyte provincial capital of 200,000 people and the biggest city on Leyte Island."

http://www.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-78123173/

Why is it in your interest to change the subject?

 

I'm talking about numerous previous cases where that has happened. Like after Moore this year, when 91 people were reported dead by multiple major news corporations when it turned out 24 fatalities had occurred.

 

I'm not deflecting, I'm raising another point of consideration. The point is Josh and company didn't go there to capitalize on the misfortune or hardships of others, they simply went there to chase a storm. I get where people are coming from when they say that they shouldn't have gotten out first or whatever, but what does this have to do with why they went there in the first place?

 

To be honest, I think Josh and company would be perfectly fine if their story didn't get covered by anyone at all.

[WNash]

I'm not second guessing Josh-- the issues are bigger that that. The questions are more about what we as a community can learn from this about how we talk about and view extreme weather, how we can talk about weather as awesome instead of talking about getting off on it, and then separately about how the deadly consequences of extreme storms drives the chaser video market and whether this community needs to countenance profiteering of that sort-- if someone shot video and then made it freely available it would make the moral issue go away.

[wxman9]

From what I read a few days ago, they went there to get "the money shot," looks like they succeeded. But I'm not arguing about their motivations last week, I'm distraught by what I see them doing NOW. It's called exploitation and if they're at all human it's going to haunt them for the rest of their lives. (Speaking of "money shot," where do you think that phrase originated?) That's all, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.  We all have our heroes, Josh & Co are just not mine.

[Scott747]

I'm not second guessing Josh-- the issues are bigger that that. The questions are more about what we as a community can learn from this about how we talk about and view extreme weather, how we can talk about weather as awesome instead of talking about getting off on it, and then separately about how the deadly consequences of extreme storms drives the chaser video market and whether this community needs to countenance profiteering of that sort-- if someone shot video and then made it freely available it would make the moral issue go away.

 

Here ya go - http://www.icyclone.com/chases/

 

Doesn't cost one cent to view all the chases...

[WNash]

I'm talking about numerous previous cases where that has happened. Like after Moore this year, when 91 people were reported dead by multiple major news corporations when it turned out 24 fatalities had occurred.

I'm not deflecting, I'm raising another point of consideration. The point is Josh and company didn't go there to capitalize on the misfortune or hardships of others, they simply went there to chase a storm. I get where people are coming from when they say that they shouldn't have gotten out first or whatever, but what does this have to do with why they went there in the first place?

To be honest, I think Josh and company would be perfectly fine if their story didn't get covered by anyone at all.

I agree that "as may as x are dead" is a BS formulation that is all about hype. But the media is using official sources to drive that hype-- in Moore, there were double counted missing persons that went into that figure. But yes, you have a point, although your point is tangential to the discussion here. It's not the media's fault that an event happened any more than a chaser-- they are exploitative like every other profit seeker. Do you think we should be like them?

As for your other point: really? He makes extreme weather videos and posts them on the internet and wants everyone to know how ballsy he is. He wants his story told. Don't be naive, or pretend to be naive (as I suspect you are doing)-- he is a PRO at this.

[WNash]

Here ya go - http://www.icyclone.com/chases/

Doesn't cost one cent to view all the chases...

All through his site and copyrighted. Come on. Are you saying he makes them rights free for broadcast?

[JoMo]

Understood with regard to you and your family's experience in your own community and the benefits of media coverage. Of course you chose to live with the aftermath, you didn't take the option of bailing out the next afternoon, flying away and selling video footage of your dead and bloated neighbors' bodies to media outlets. 

 

From my understanding Josh and his crew did not go there to record dead people. They went there with the intention of recording and experiencing the storm. Once they had experienced the storm, they left. I'm not aware if they have medical credentials or experience with search and rescue operations. It's best to leave that kind of stuff up to the professionals.

[WNash]

From my understanding Josh and his crew did not go there to record dead people. They went there with the intention of recording and experiencing the storm. Once they had experienced the storm, they left. I'm not aware if they have medical credentials or experience with search and rescue operations. It's best to leave that kind of stuff up to the professionals.

As I pointed out a few days ago, humanitarian relief organizations would appreciate having people in place who could do triage and assuming of the needs of a disaster area. One way to provide a real service would be to work with Red Cross/Crescent to obtain logistics-assessment training, stay in place afterward and communicate local needs to reeling workers to ensure a storm-battered area is receiving the right allocation of resources, instead of hauling ass out of there with videos in tow. Just a thought.

[JoMo]

As I pointed out a few days ago, humanitarian relief organizations would appreciate having people in place who could do triage and assuming of the needs of a disaster area. One way to provide a real service would be to work with Red Cross/Crescent to obtain logistics-assessment training, stay in place afterward and communicate local needs to reeling workers to ensure a storm-battered area is receiving the right allocation of resources, instead of hauling ass out of there with videos in tow. Just a thought.

 

So it boils down to you being angry that they went there to experience the storm and they got video that was sold to the media and is being used to raise awareness on how bad the storm was? 

 

In my other post comparing the Joplin tornado, I attempted to show you how doing such a thing could be seen as raising awareness which 'humanizes' the response. It's one thing to read about how bad it was, it's another thing to visually see it happening and watching or hearing stories of those impacted. I think people can learn from their video just how bad this storm was and how people can find themselves in bad situations and why they should take weather warnings seriously. 

[brettjrob]

WNash: you've repeatedly staked out a position that, while you personally understand where we're coming from and share our passion, you're just concerned about public perception for our community. After the last couple pages, I'm becoming convinced that your own sensibilities are more offended by storm chasing than the average Joe. I really can't explain the hostility and condescension any other way. You're free to argue your point of view, but please be honest about where you're coming from.

[WNash]

WNash: you've repeatedly staked out a position that, while you personally understand where we're coming from and share our passion, you're just concerned about public perception for our community. After the last couple pages, I'm becoming convinced that your own sensibilities are more offended by storm chasing than the average Joe. I really can't explain the hostility and condescension any other way. You're free to argue your point of view, but please be honest about where you're coming from.

 

Well, my sense of injustice is personally offended, but I'm backed up in my belief that I don't speak only for myself on this by a few people who I asked about it, as well as a minority of posters here. And I see recycled arguments here that seem to not really address my points. I don't think this is an issue of relativism: I was taught to speak up when I see a social or moral injustice. I am trying to ensure that my words and actions flow from my beliefs, I have an obligation to address this issue of integrity, and I am trying to say this difficult thing in a tactful way. I think that I haven't been tactful or graceful at times, and I'm sorry for when I haven't-- I admire so much about Josh but I feel that as a member of this community I can't condone much of what's going on, and in this case, continued silence is continued assent. I will endeavor to ensure that I do not make things personal. I don't intend to be hostile or to condescend, only to present a different viewpoint in the hopes that I might change minds.

 

That's where I'm coming from. No other agenda.

[nwburbschaser]

What exactly is the social or moral injustice that you speak of? Who are the victims and how are they victims?

Does recording video of natural occurrences cause a moral or social injustice?

[WNash]

I've already explained that as plainly as possible. Please don't play rhetorical games by simplifying and reducing my words to absurdities that are not connected to what I said.

[nwburbschaser]

Then the explanations you have presented are lacking because I do not see any injustice in what you are arguing about. I see personal opinions which is why I'm trying to get you to simplify your responses so then maybe I can understand what the true social injustice in this situation is. A social injustice needs victims. Making a video is not a social injustice, watching nature is not a social injustice, even making money off of witnessing a disaster is not a social injustice.