Storm Chasing and Media Coverage Ethics

[mappy]

This thread is not sexy

[nwburbschaser]

This thread is not sexy

The overall topic is valid, but it's just a never ending argument because everything is based off of opinions in this thread.

[WNash]

Well, I think there are people who say that a "never ending argument" never progresses, and some of those people actually seem to try to keep the argument from progressing. And there are others who see a progression, a synthesis, or an advance-- what have you-- and acknowledge that it takes some difficult discussion to deal with difficult issues.

 

This is a difficult issue-- I'm sorry that it is. But I have to say something about it. I'm really grateful to the admins for moving this to the subforum where it belongs, and I appreciate those who take the time to try to think through arguments they may not always agree with, instead of making assumptions that there are exactly two sides to every issue and trying to return this to the kind of grinding, meaningless slog that refuses to admit that the world has any subtlety.

[nwburbschaser]

It's a never ending argument because it involves personal opinions. Unless there is a specific immoral act to judge then there will be no resolution.

[WNash]

It's a never ending argument because it involves personal opinions. Unless there is a specific immoral act to judge then there will be no resolution.

 

Here's the thing: you're right! This is the only way that any sort of headway is made in morally problematic situations: through "never ending" discussions and exchanges of opinions and ideas. There isn't total moral certainty. I'm definitely not "right" in an absolute sense! I'm just expressing why I think two particular closely related issues regarding this chase -- the frequently used, casually sexualizing/aesthicizing mode of discourse in the discussion forum and the profit motive in video production are morally problematic in my view, in the views of others here, and I suspect in the views of many outside our world. You just don't get simple answers for this sort of situation, but that doesn't mean you ridicule, dismiss, marginalize, and shut down the debate.

[brettjrob]

Here's the thing: you're right! This is the only way that any sort of headway is made in morally problematic situations: through "never ending" discussions and exchanges of opinions and ideas. There isn't total moral certainty. I'm definitely not "right" in an absolute sense! I'm just expressing why I think two particular closely related issues regarding this chase -- the frequently used, casually sexualizing/aesthicizing mode of discourse in the discussion forum and the profit motive in video production are morally problematic in my view, in the views of others here, and I suspect in the views of many outside our world. You just don't get simple answers for this sort of situation, but that doesn't mean you ridicule, dismiss, marginalize, and shut down the debate.

 

What is it that you propose changes, then? That people stop using terms like "weather porn" publicly to describe video which was shot as thousands were dying? I can get behind that, as I think most of us can, though we'll slip up from time to time (as a few select folks did in the iCyclone thread).

 

But you seem to be hinting at a larger issue with chasing in general. You mention the "profit motive" in shooting video, for example. Okay; I accept your premise that video sells, and that a higher body count generally means it sells for more. What action should be taken as a result of that premise, though? Should chasers stop shooting video if people die in a storm, even if their motive has little to do with profit? Should they cease chasing such storms altogether simply because there's moral ambiguity?

 

Look; I'm actually with you on some level. As someone who chases purely for the meteorological aspect, I often find myself annoyed with others who are driven more by profit and attention, which are more abundant with destructive events. But I don't think there's much that can or should be done about it. Even though I dislike such chasers' motives, I still chase the same destructive storms they do without any qualms. If the only difference between us is in our internal motives, it's not something worth taking action or losing sleep over.

 

My point is that you're spending a lot of time raising "moral problems" with no realistic solutions. The only item you've addressed with the possibility of a realistic solution is the problem of public rhetoric "sexualizing" destructive storms, which I agree should be limited where possible (particularly around recent storm victims). The other items you've discussed have only two real outcomes: either chasers stop chasing, or you and your ilk accept that chasers will continue chasing. The moral problems you've discussed, while real, I don't think are anywhere near clear-cut enough to justify the former.

[thewxmann]

Here's the thing: you're right! This is the only way that any sort of headway is made in morally problematic situations: through "never ending" discussions and exchanges of opinions and ideas. There isn't total moral certainty. I'm definitely not "right" in an absolute sense! I'm just expressing why I think two particular closely related issues regarding this chase -- the frequently used, casually sexualizing/aesthicizing mode of discourse in the discussion forum and the profit motive in video production are morally problematic in my view, in the views of others here, and I suspect in the views of many outside our world. You just don't get simple answers for this sort of situation, but that doesn't mean you ridicule, dismiss, marginalize, and shut down the debate.

 

I don't think Josh is there for the profit motive -- he's there to experience the power of nature and no more.

The profit motive (if any) for the vast majority of chasers does not have anything to do with human death and destruction, and everything to do with showing the beauty and power of mother nature.

 

Put it another way, most chasers would rather see a photogenic EF0 that touches nothing, over a photogenic EF5 that plows through a city, regardless of the value of whatever footage they get in either case.

 

That hurricanes are so deadly and destructive is a byproduct of what is, at the core, a very fascinating meteorological and physical process. My appreciation of that process is different from my reaction to the byproducts of that process. I hate the byproducts of that process. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to appreciate the process itself.

 

In other words, and using the cancer analogy, I think the ability for a few mutations to cause a normal cell to morph into an unstoppable cancer cell is fascinating. I want to learn more about it and watch this process happen. But goodness gracious, I hate what cancer does to individuals and families who have to deal with it.

 

When Josh is using the word "hawt", he is describing his appreciation for the power of nature. No more. Maybe a PR blunder, maybe insensitive, but hardly immoral.

 

Also, for those who are criticizing Josh for getting out of there so early -- what if he stayed, got injured or sick, and required medical help? (Jim Edds stayed so long that he was suffering from severe dehydration.) Wouldn't Josh then be taking up resources that could be used on others? In situations such as these, it might be better to leave the scene, get out of the way, and let the professionals do what they do best.

[WNash]

I don't know-- Josh seems independently wealthy and may not need the money, and may have other motives. I don't know -- time will tell-- but he markets iCyclone like a business, not like a hobby. He may be independently wealthy and STILL have a profit motive. Seeing a copyright on the videos indicates that this isn't totally altruistic.

 

He's an absolutely fearless and brilliant man and I feel like a fool for criticizing him, but I feel morally compelled to do so anyway. I'm sorry to him and to anyone else because this is not necessarily graceful behavior. I take no joy in having so many posters here, who I've read for years and who I've learned so much from about meteorology, really hold me in contempt for asking questions which they feel are inappropriate. That is to say, I'm not a troll, and I don't get any perverse pleasure out of winding everyone up here. Please accept all of this as being of goodwill and an attempt to help, not to hurt, this community.

 

I think that maybe we can be cognizant of our modes of discourse and be in awe of the weather together without getting off on it individually-- does that make any sense at all? That's maybe one direction that I see.

 

Nothing I can do will change the desire of people to want to watch extreme weather videos... I watch them myself!! And there are different incentives to create them: money, glory, excitement, etc. So maybe... over years... awe will replace thrill as the narrative of these videos. I don't know how that will work, but I know I have an aversion to the growing number of amateurish "holy sh!t" videos. The death drive of the videos is a different story, I know that's not how WE work but I understand that this is how big stories drive what networks pay for footage and it is very, very scary to me. And when THAT motivates chasers we have a serious problem.

[nwburbschaser]

So WNash, is the motivation behind some of this where you find the moral issue and not the act of chasing itself?

[andyhb]

Nothing I can do will change the desire of people to want to watch extreme weather videos... I watch them myself!! And there are different incentives to create them: money, glory, excitement, etc. So maybe... over years... awe will replace thrill as the narrative of these videos. I don't know how that will work, but I know I have an aversion to the growing number of amateurish "holy sh!t" videos. The death drive of the videos is a different story, I know that's not how WE work but I understand that this is how big stories drive what networks pay for footage and it is very, very scary to me. And when THAT motivates chasers we have a serious problem.

 

Most of us do. See the reaction at the beginning of this thread to Brandon Sullivan's nonsense on 5/31/13.

[The_Global_Warmer]

wow Wnash is totally being crapped on.  

 

 

Ethics and morals are not subjective.  It's subjective to each person how they practice them.  But these are not transient perceptions and understandings.  

 

 

Millions of people raise these questions and feel like I feel and Wnash feels.  If you think millions of people can believe in the same concept that is based on nothing but our human perceptions of reality it's not hogwash. 

 

 

Wnash is treating his opposition like he believes they are wrong.  They are not treating him with near the same class and respect.

 

 

You can disagree with me or Wnash but the vileness of it speaks volumes to me.  

 

 

So many defensive people.  It's a red flag that these ideas push peoples buttons.

 

Yall can hate me all you want but Wnash doesn't deserve this kind of attitude thrown at him.

[David Reimer]

Oh good grief! The latest complaints about chasing in this thread come from an individual who lives in New York and could NEVER understand the mentality of those who live in the Plains. I hate to break it to you WNash, but most folks who live in the Plains LIKE AND APPRECIATE chasers because they provide a valuable service of providing reports. Most offices out here have a good working relationship with chasers and most areas of the Plains get reports from chasers. You've made your point and I accept and even agree with portions of it, but now you're just showing the bias of those who live out of the plains. I've sat back and let you talk, but now this is just rambling on.  Trust me, as someone who owns and runs a company that has over 300,000 social media followers on a page about Storm Chasing, I can tell you many of them are appreciative of the work the community does as a whole.

 

There are a few bad apples and I would join with you to call them out (In fact, if you go back to the first few pages of this thread, you'll see I did just that). This has gotten worse over the past few years and as someone who has the second-largest storm chasing brand in social media, I get to hear about it from the public. I get to explain that there are a few idiots, just like any hobby or profession. However, I don't see why you have such a strong opinion about the matter when you live in New York, many miles away from the Plains. Perhaps you've only seen media coverage of chasers, in which case, you'll see the most extreme video possible because that's what sells. Not all chasers are like that. I would suggest that you conduct further research on the topic before continuing to criticize a generalized group because of one event in a country on the other side of the world.  

 

The_Global_Warmer: No one 'hates' anyone in this thread. In fact, it was several months old until it got brought back to life a few days ago. Expressing your opinions about a topic is acceptable, but poking the bear and continuing to rehash old topic points is only going to cause agitation and not provide gain to anyone (except trolls). 

[HurricaneJosh]

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

 

Huh?

 

Please make sense.  My stuff is copyrighted because it's mine.  Copyrighting isn't just about making money-- it's making sure others don't use your work for making money.

 

To this day I haven't made one penny from chasing or selling footage.  That doesn't mean I won't-- as I've said, I couldn't care less about this ethical discussion, it is silly to me-- but up to now, it's just been for my own personal reasons.

[Chicago Storm]

Huh?

 

Please make sense.  My stuff is copyrighted because it's mine.  Copyrighting isn't just about making money-- it's making sure others don't use your work for making money.

 

To this day I haven't made one penny from chasing or selling footage.  That doesn't mean I won't-- as I've said, I couldn't care less about this ethical discussion, it is silly to me-- but up to now, it's just been for my own personal reasons.

This.

[Tullioz]

Huh?

 

Please make sense.  My stuff is copyrighted because it's mine.  Copyrighting isn't just about making money-- it's making sure others don't use your work for making money.

 

To this day I haven't made one penny from chasing or selling footage.  That doesn't mean I won't-- as I've said, I couldn't care less about this ethical discussion, it is silly to me-- but up to now, it's just been for my own personal reasons.

 

Good PM Josh, Please check your inbox. Thanks. 

[nwburbschaser]

Ethics and morals are not subjective. .

I think they are exactly that to be honest.

[WNash]

Huh?

 

Please make sense.  My stuff is copyrighted because it's mine.  Copyrighting isn't just about making money-- it's making sure others don't use your work for making money.

 

 

 

Of course you're right-- you have an obligation to protect your work. I'm totally in the wrong on that.

[Chicago Storm]

Oh good grief! The latest complaints about chasing in this thread come from an individual who lives in New York and could NEVER understand the mentality of those who live in the Plains. I hate to break it to you WNash, but most folks who live in the Plains LIKE AND APPRECIATE chasers because they provide a valuable service of providing reports. Most offices out here have a good working relationship with chasers and most areas of the Plains get reports from chasers. You've made your point and I accept and even agree with portions of it, but now you're just showing the bias of those who live out of the plains. I've sat back and let you talk, but now this is just rambling on.  Trust me, as someone who owns and runs a company that has over 300,000 social media followers on a page about Storm Chasing, I can tell you many of them are appreciative of the work the community does as a whole.

And this.

 

This is something a lot of people don't know. I can't tell you the countless amount of times I have had great conversations with the local public and law enforcement that want to talk to us. Sometimes it's sharing stories, other times it's chit-chat, and other times it's sharing information.

[WNash]

I think they are exactly that to be honest.

 

Well... I don't want to get too "out there" in this discussion, but I don't think this distinction matters much, because we have to exist together as a community and some sort of agreement about ethical norms will exist regardless of whether we call it "objective" or "subjective."

[Big Jims Videos]

Well there you have it folks, he's not in it for the money. He could make thousands off his exclusive videos over the years and chooses not to.

Wonder how much Brandon Sullivan got paid by the weather channel for the segment of weather caught on camera?

Josh could profit immensely off his videos and chooses not to. And his videos are top notch with no one freaking out or screaming.

[nwburbschaser]

Well... I don't want to get too "out there" in this discussion, but I don't think this distinction matters much, because we have to exist together as a community and some sort of agreement about ethical norms will exist regardless of whether we call it "objective" or "subjective."

Think in the sense of relativism, which is absolutely subjective. You have people like Reimer or Chicago Storm who just posted examples based on their experiences. You say what they do is unethical from your point of view, but their experience tells them that it is in fact ethical. That's why it is pointless to have this argument without a specific instance to judge. Chasing storms or filming storms in itself is a harmless act, and to judge the morality of it you have to look at motivations, consequences etc..

[NECT]

Historically and educationally speaking, chasers can offer a lot for public awareness, and just plain documenting historical weather events. I've watched documentaries and read articles on the hurricane of 1938, the flood of 1955, the blizzard of 1978 because they directly relate to where I live. I watched with dismay as Katrina unfolded, and a NWS employee told everyone to get out of Dodge because it was going to be deadly.

 

 I have to believe there are some chasers who are in it for the money. I also have to believe there are chasers who do it with honorable intentions. Surely, there are chasers who understand the risks, and do everything possible to mitigate those risks and stay out of the way as much as is possible. Surely there are chasers who have no idea what they are getting into and make a devastating situation worse. 

 

The fact is that there is intrigue whenever a natural disaster is forecasted and/or actually happens. I get the fascination with the "hawt" satellite images,and I understand why some people are offended, concerned, or po'd when they see such descriptions. 

[NECT]

Well... I don't want to get too "out there" in this discussion, but I don't think this distinction matters much, because we have to exist together as a community and some sort of agreement about ethical norms will exist regardless of whether we call it "objective" or "subjective."

Sure it matters. Ethics are not absolute across cultures, and they change over time within cultures. This discussion is all about ethics, no?

[WNash]

Sure it matters. Ethics are not absolute across cultures, and they change over time within cultures. This discussion is all about ethics, no?

 

Well, I'm talking pragmatically, and about community consensus, not what each of our individual views of morality are, because those tend to be mutually irreconcilable, especially when people argue in bad faith.

[WNash]

Well there you have it folks, he's not in it for the money. He could make thousands off his exclusive videos over the years and chooses not to.

Wonder how much Brandon Sullivan got paid by the weather channel for the segment of weather caught on camera?

Josh could profit immensely off his videos and chooses not to. And his videos are top notch with no one freaking out or screaming.

 

No, that's not "there you have it"-- Josh quite honestly said that he may choose to profit from the rights in the future. Which is his prerogative-- I can't argue with that. I'm trying to argue for context and for compassion to inform the production of these things. I find Josh's videos themselves to be pretty much perfect and non exploitative-- it's the rhetoric here I don't like. Maybe I feel that he can set a strong example?

 

EDIT: I completely understand why everyone has seen this as a played out argument. I really hope that some people can take what I'm saying in the spirit in which I intend it. I really don't have a fixed final agenda in mind and I'm not against anything that people actually DO per se.

[NECT]

Well, I'm talking pragmatically, and about community consensus, not what each of our individual views of morality are, because those tend to be mutually irreconcilable, especially when people argue in bad faith.

So then, pragmatically and based on communal consensus, you have all the answers? I ask this as a genuine question, not in an argumentative manner.

[brettjrob]

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.

 

I was re-reading the posts from today and felt I should respond to this. You have to consider the costs that chasing entails. Even if you ignore the cameras and fancy equipment and focus solely on gas/plane tickets and motels, it adds up quickly. So to be technical, very few chasers are truly "profiting" from their hobby. I don't necessarily find it wrong if someone does, either, but it's almost a moot point for all but a select few. If you're talking about someone making $500 on video sales (to big media that then turns a huge profit from it, mind you) for a trip that cost them several grand, though, I don't see how anyone could have an objection.

[ncforecaster89]

Why is it so hard for some people to understand why so many others could take issue with the idea of profiting off others misery and misfortune?

It's one thing to chase a storm and photograph the fascinating meteorological aspects of the storm, and quite another to put ourselves in a position that we become part of the story and/or profit from others suffering.

The simple fact is that there was no genuine NEED for any chasers to be there to document this storm. Those types of arguments are both flippant and nonsensical.

I didn't become a participant in this conversation until I witnessed the completely unwarranted hostility and insensitivity shown towards the legitimate concerns expressed by Tulliox in the icyclone chase thread. Not only did he feel it was inappropriate to profit off the death and devastation afflicting his fellow countrymen, but also found it inherently unfair that these outside "thrill seekers" (who rushed in for personal gratification and profit) were so quick to get themselves removed from the incredible suffering that they left behind. The argument that they needed to get out so promptly as a result of an injury sustained by a fellow Chaser only highlights the reason why they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Who's to say that the plane wouldn't have helped others in need IF they didn't have to transport an injured "thrill-seeker" who had no genuine NEED to be there in the first place. Although he was injured in an effort to help save others doesn't, and shouldn't, override the reality that they could've, and even might've, been more of a liability to the overall situation, than any real help. Yes, they helped provide assistance to those shown in the video, but it's debatable whether their presence was definitely required in those people's rescue-meaning they would've been helped by others, instead. That's beside the point anyway, and I only address it in reference to those who want to use that as a convenient excuse to squash any dissension towards the problematic motives for being there in the first place.

I will add that I also thought it was a little inappropriate to record themselves providing such humanitarian assistance. I say this as someone who has helped saved numerous lives in the past (as a lifeguard at the beach), and wouldn't have felt it was appropriate that I be recorded providing such assistance. But, that's just me!

Let me clarify, it's morally incomprehensible to me to see these chasers seeking out attention for themselves, and profiting off the misfortune of others. In doing so, their actions are demonstrating that they are more concerned with being a part of the story, and sharing THEIR story, than anything else. Furthermore, it's absolute absurdity to suggest that their quick removal from the area was somehow more beneficial to the situation, than if they had remained behind to provide assistance in the aftermath.

The real hero's in this situation are the ones like Tulliox, who are rushing into the area to help-not those who rushed out as soon as they were able, and have engaged in actions that undeniably amount to the exploitation of a very catastrophic event.

[ncforecaster89]

Now, I say all of the aforementioned as someone who has chased, and will continue to chase hurricanes.

That said, I will never again rush into an area without the means, and the time alloted, to provide assistance to those afflicted in the aftermath. As Tulliox stated, I too feel it's the very least we can do. To me, it's the same general principle as someone going to a restaurant without the means to leave the waiter or waitress a tip. In other words, I believe we shouldn't chase if we could become a liability for others, and if we aren't able and willing to sacrifice some of our time in the immediate aftermath, providing assistance to those in need.

[WNash]

So then, pragmatically and based on communal consensus, you have all the answers? I ask this as a genuine question, not in an argumentative manner.

 

No, and I have been offering more questions than answers, I hope.