Storm Chasing and Media Coverage Ethics

[Derecho!]

Legal provisions surrounding chasing are going to founder completely on defining it.  

 

In a vehicle within X miles of a tornado? A supercell? A Tornado warning? What makes a chaser? A specialized camera in the vehicle? Any computers or devices in the vehicle having installed any one from a list of software (GR, F5Data, etc)? Whether you make bulletin board or social media posts about chasing? 

 

I can't imagine the comedy of a sherriff pulling over a couple of guys in a car while a tornado is passing by, finding they don't have a "license" and then trying to see if they have GRAnalyst installed on their laptop or whether there's a thread devoted to their chasecation on AmericanWx. 

 

Otherwise you were just on a "photo tour of midwest wildflowers" and were unlucky enough to be near a tornado. 

 

From a legal perspective the only thing that is conceivable are police closures of roads in warning boxes out ahead of a tornado.  And most places don't have the manpower to do that and the police have better things to do, like spot for themselves, respond to emergencies, etc.

 

I realize people have worked themselves into a frenzy regarding stupid chasers but in the grand scheme of the universe it's pretty far down the list of problems in the world to address. 

 

 

 

Edit: There is one conceivable way one could argule to target "chasers" - ticketing people who are pulled over in a tornado warning box.   But lots of people will pull over to stay out of hail, because visibility is so poor they don't feel comfortable driving, etc. So then you're left with trying to ticket people pulled over in a tornado warning box who are using a camera of any kind. 

[Bozart]

At this point, I would even support a type of federal licensing program, but I think it would be a bear to set up and monitor.

 

There already is a licensing program, administered by the states: they are called driver's licenses. Whether driving to a wedding, or to and from work, or out to see a cloud, people have the right to use the public roads unimpeded. This applies until and unless they disobey a traffic law or cause a hazard. At that point, they are dealt with individually. That's the American way. If a local storm situation makes traffic stops impractical at the time, then take a snapshot of the license tag and catch up with the miscreant later.

 

I don't ever want to be forced to stare at the buzz-cut head of some government agent and explain myself, UNLESS I CALLED HIM. It's none of anyone's business why I'm on Road XYZ with a camera in my front seat. If I die, I die.

 

Some of y'all need to take a step back from the emotions of the day and be more careful what you wish for.

[Derecho!]

Of course the frenzy will reach it's apogee after a chaser is actually killed by a tornado itself (heretofore it's just been traffic accidents, of course). 

 

To which my reaction will be...so what?

 

Even if chasing increases in popularity, based on the history so far, it's probably going to happen once every 5 years, at most. Despite the dire fantasies of some I doubt you're going to see several dozen killed at once - maybe 4 in a single incident in a couple vehicles, and that will be incredibly rare.

 

Meanwhile, it will be a tiny fraction of those killed snapping their necks diving into pools. It will be a tiny fraction of those killed climbing Mt. Everest, for chrissakes. 

 

More tragic will be the inevitable fatal head-on collision between a speeding chaser trying to pass recklessly and a family of 5; that will probably happen once in the next 20 years.   However, that will be a tiny fraction of the families killed in headons with drunk drivers, or people texting on their cellphones. 

[Bozart]

The constantly repeated  mythology that there are tornadoes that can only be survived underground is contributing to this, I think. 

 

If that were true, thousands would have died in Joplin, both Moore F5s, Greensburg, etc. 

This is a great post, and bears repeating frequently.

[TheWeatherPimp]

I'm glad Brandon at least made that statement.  I think he had to. I always really like Brandon in the beginning and I think he's a good guy at his heart.  I think fame has gotten to him a bit and its definitely changed him.  The thing that I was most disappointed about wasn't the fact that they got in the situation.  It was the fact that Brandon himself was one of the most outspoken people in regards to the SWAT chasing team from Indiana last 4/14 when they accidentally got stuck in Wichita and filmed the outer edge of the EF3.  They had lost data and then on top of that, accidentally got off on the wrong exit.  Then they sold the footage and the community when nuts on them... spearheaded by Brandon Sullivan.  Well, Brandon is now milking this with the media way more than they ever did.  He publicly called them stupid and inexperienced chasers for what they did.  These guys had two degreed meteorologists on their team and had been chasing just as long as him.  So, irony hit a bit yesterday and Brandon realized he wasn't immune to being in a bad situation.  Also, it was a bit ridiculous in the video how obviously he was playing for the video with his over the top screaming, etc...  I hope he learns a lot from this.  Basically because of his actions, SWAT had to disband because they had no more sponsor support.  I don't agree with getting that close for anyone... but I don't like the double standards that have been thrown around by certain chasers.  It's very unprofessional.  That being said, I hope many lessons are learned from every side, and I am VERY glad everyone is okay and safe.

I have stayed out of this discussion since I obviously was close to the situation from last year's Wichita encounter. While mistakes do happen, I haven't chased since 4/14, Brandon Sullivan and Brett Wright essentially took to social media after our close call last year and did exactly what Zach said. Called us unprofessional, stupid, wreckless, etc. I hope Brandon is humbled by this. I hope he makes smarter decisions. But his statement on his Facebook page feels more like damage control than a true sincere apology.

[Derecho!]

The whole "you can't survive an F5 underground" idea got started by Jarrell and the Double Creek Estates. In that one specific instance other than one person in a bathtub, I think, and one family in an underground shelter, literally everyone there was killed.

 

That was a pretty unique tornado and not even typical of F5s. 

 

And so you've seen "shelter underground if you can" and "it's best if you build an underground shelter"  morph into "you can't survive an F5 above ground." And, of course, even for our F5s, F5 damage typically covers only a tiny portion of their track, though that gets completely lost by the media and public - I assure you everyone remotely near the Moore tornado a couple of weeks ago proudly asserts that they survived an F5 tornado . 

 

I don't think we've really seen an above-ground specialized shelter or safe room really tested by a genuine F5 yet, have we? I'm sure those would ensure survival in pretty much everything, but I'm dubious one would have at Double Creek Estates. 

[Bozart]

I don't think we've really seen an above-ground specialized shelter or safe room really tested by a genuine F5 yet, have we? I'm sure those would ensure survival in pretty much everything, but I'm dubious one would have at Double Creek Estates. 

 

There have been some bank vaults.

 

If an above-ground safe room is built with sound, researched engineering, I'd prefer it to a basement. No danger of flooding, or of having a structure peel off and expose me or collapse onto me.

[DoctorMu]

I want to see what kind of fallout, if any, there is from KFOR telling people to get in their cars and head south. If it can be shown that any of the 5 victims that died in automobiles headed out because of what they heard on KFOR, some major litigation is in their future.

 

 

It's an absolute miracle more people were not killed chasing and leaving OKC.  Yesterday should go down as a day of infamy in stormchasing and tornado preparedness.

[AtticaFanatica]

Brandon is an arrogant turd. He probably made his statement because he knows he jeapordized his career.

That's correct.

[AtticaFanatica]

One way to stop this storm chasing for profit would be for the legitimate research teams to start providing footage to the networks and TV Stations for free or next to free. And perhaps they could have Public Information Officers to liaise with the media and the public via social media and live streams.

If you can devalue the sale of video footage and photographs of tornadoes, then that might stop some of the nonsense of people chasing to solely sell video.

People like Reed Timmer and Brandon Sullivan is an example of the type of "storm chaser" that gives legitimate severe weather research teams a bad name.

At this point, I would even support a type of federal licensing program, but I think it would be a bear to set up and monitor. Perhaps it could be like what amateur radio operators have to go through that would subject the license holders to severe fines if they violate the terms.

Most of the time, we're concentrating on data collection, so there's usually not time to get good video. Also, the location where data are being collected is often not a very good location for video. There's exceptions, though.

[JoMo]

The whole "you can't survive an F5 underground" idea got started by Jarrell and the Double Creek Estates. In that one specific instance other than one person in a bathtub, I think, and one family in an underground shelter, literally everyone there was killed.

 

That was a pretty unique tornado and not even typical of F5s. 

 

And so you've seen "shelter underground if you can" and "it's best if you build an underground shelter"  morph into "you can't survive an F5 above ground." And, of course, even for our F5s, F5 damage typically covers only a tiny portion of their track, though that gets completely lost by the media and public - I assure you everyone remotely near the Moore tornado a couple of weeks ago proudly asserts that they survived an F5 tornado . 

 

I don't think we've really seen an above-ground specialized shelter or safe room really tested by a genuine F5 yet, have we? I'm sure those would ensure survival in pretty much everything, but I'm dubious one would have at Double Creek Estates. 

 

 

A news story written last night on above ground shelters that survived the Moore tornado.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-tornadoes-aboveground-shelters-stood-up-in-face-of-ef5-moore-tornado/article/3840636

 

There was an above ground shelter not far from me that was in the upper EF-4 portion of the Joplin tornado right before it hit the hospital. It survived even though the house it was in was a pile of rubble. 

 

Just needed a fresh coat of paint. The family took it with them to their new house.

 

I know of 2 people that died in their basement when debris fell in and crushed them. 

[cstrunk]

Its clearly shown in Brandon's video he's fleeing the tornado to avoid death. But what you don't see any other chase is 100mph inflow winds, which is what caused the damage that hit his vehicle. I agree its stupid to stick around as long as the Brandon and his crew did. These guy may have learned a lesson, but will never stop. I found Brandon Sullivan's interview with TWC VERY disappointing though, he made it sound as if it was nothing. 

 

Of course he is fleeing the tornado to avoid death.  It is also clearly shown that he made the mistake of staying too close for too long and they nearly paid the ultimate price for it.

 

Regarding the inflow winds, they were driving south and the debris came from the right side of the road.  The wind was westerly (NOT inflow) and was part of the circulation itself, i.e., being TOO CLOSE.

 

I don't think there is any good way to regulate storm chasing.  You can't prevent people from doing stupid things, you can only educate them and hope that they take your advice.  It is up to them, just like someone mentioned climbers dying on Mt. Everest.  It is a choice, and for some it is worth the risk.  We can just hope and pray that their actions don't put others who are trying to flee at risk of being killed.

[Ed Lizard]

Jarrell was also a large, F-5 tornado moving between 5 and 10 mph, IIRC.  The homes being hit were exposed to damaging winds loaded with debris for a prolonged period.

 

The driving away thing that got started, the town is rural, near I-35, and the storm moved slowly enough people could have escaped it, but using rare instances of slow moving, escapable storms and turning it into a rule of thumb like stop under an insterstate bridge and try to get under the girders that doesn't apply to the majority of situations and makes it worse, not better.

 

 

BTW, as far as specialized software, while I have never chased (no experience, wrong part of Texas) I think anyone with basic internet knowledge, common in car GPS navigation, and a cell phone that can bring up NWS radar imagery only a few minutes old can get themselves into a tornado (for better or worse).

 

I have noticed, back when there weren't as many chasers, 'punching the core', or 'entering the bear cage' was something chasers on videos tried to avoid, and in recent years that seems to have become common, maybe inspired by armored vehicles like the TIV and Dominator doing it.

[mappy]

It's sad that some well known storm chasers, like Brandon, Reed and Mike, all got themselves into bad situations last night. Obviously not all chasers are like them and aren't stupid when it comes to chasing. The problem is when you showcase their videos over and over again on national news and TWC, it makes the chasing community as whole look bad (or great if you don't understand how stupid they were)

I feel for people like Ian and company, or ChicagoStorm, Brett and others here who are chasers that follow the rules of the road and don't put themselves into danger... They will be impacted by this too. Maybe not today but I'd imagine over time they will.

[sojitodd]

ok..so who is this?-a responsible chaser or a moron?

[JoMo]

ok..so who is this?-a responsible chaser or a moron?

 

Have you never watched Twister? That's the 'greedy bad guy' who was in it for the money. I think that character was loosely supposed to be Storm Chaser Warren Faidley . 

[sojitodd]

Have you never watched Twister? That's the 'greedy bad guy' who was in it for the money. I think that character was loosely supposed to be Storm Chaser Warren Faidley . 

well duh  . Thanks JoMo.

[audioguy3107]

Storm chasing regulation? Why not regulate french fry consumption, it's potentially deadly. 

 

If Michael Bloomberg gets his way, you'll probably see that in New York state!!   Anyway, I was out last evening and didn't get to partake in watching any of the action, but after watching some of the video, I'm really surprised.  I can't figure out for the life of me what Bettes and the crew were doing, especially since you would think they know better.  Based on their career, you wouldn't think they were doing any of that for the benefit of the camera.  I think the biggest thing about last evening (as others have pointed out) was the local media outlet in OKC getting everyone in their cars to get out of the way.  Fortunately it didn't prove to be a disastrous situation, but could you imagine if there was a long track violent tornado churning through all those cars at a standstill?  THAT would have been a disaster.

[brettjrob]

The thing that I was most disappointed about wasn't the fact that they got in the situation.  It was the fact that Brandon himself was one of the most outspoken people in regards to the SWAT chasing team from Indiana last 4/14 when they accidentally got stuck in Wichita and filmed the outer edge of the EF3.  They had lost data and then on top of that, accidentally got off on the wrong exit.  Then they sold the footage and the community when nuts on them... spearheaded by Brandon Sullivan.  Well, Brandon is now milking this with the media way more than they ever did.  He publicly called them stupid and inexperienced chasers for what they did.  These guys had two degreed meteorologists on their team and had been chasing just as long as him.  So, irony hit a bit yesterday and Brandon realized he wasn't immune to being in a bad situation.  Also, it was a bit ridiculous in the video how obviously he was playing for the video with his over the top screaming, etc...  I hope he learns a lot from this.  Basically because of his actions, SWAT had to disband because they had no more sponsor support.  I don't agree with getting that close for anyone... but I don't like the double standards that have been thrown around by certain chasers.  It's very unprofessional.

 

I think this speaks to a broader truth I've found in the chaser community over the years. Some will say I'm oversimplifying the issue, but this is the general trend: almost everyone makes mistakes and takes big risks from time to time while chasing. There's certainly a spectrum, with the most cautious fringe staying back several miles every time and never exceeding the speed limit, to the other extreme of Reed/Jeff P. But the lion's share of that distribution will, over the course of a few years, make at least one or two chase decisions that are really just indefensible -- and I'm certainly among that group. I've messed up before in several different ways, with varying degrees of intentionality, and it will no doubt happen again in the future.

 

What point am I trying to get at? The real differences between many of the higher-profile chasers have far more to do with image and perception than reality. More specifically, the sniping that goes on between "teams" and such is no more sincere than the ham performance that certain-chaser-on-CNN put on in his video yesterday. When one chaser or "team" starts on a crusade against another who made a mistake, the former is never blameless. In fact, quite often, we ultimately find over the years that the crusader is even *more* reckless. While I don't remember the Brandon Sullivan vs. SWAT spat you all are discussing, shame on Brandon, if it happened at all. You hit the nail on the head: he deserves reprimand not simply because he got hit yesterday, but because of all the other choices he's made -- past and present -- that indicate his lack of humility and lack of respect for other chasers. In this case, the SWAT incident and his choice to whore his video yesterday both fall into that category.

 

I've seen countless examples of every type of chaser making consciously-risky decisions in the heat of the moment. Amateurs, veterans, blue-collar hobbyists, research meteorologists -- it doesn't matter. Chris Novy, another guy who's led high-profile "chase safety" crusades, apparently had major issues yesterday and was also hit on 5/24/11 near El Reno. In addition, I've seen and/or heard of some of the most respected professional names in our field doing things while chasing personally (not necessarily in an official research/field project capacity) that would leave many aghast if they knew. We all need to accept that this is an inherently risky activity, and show some humility. There are chasers and chase groups I can't stand, but that's far more a function of their attitude and their respect for others than whether their current tally of mishaps and screw-ups happens to be one or two more than my own.

[Bozart]

If Michael Bloomberg gets his way, you'll probably see that in New York state!!

At least Bloomberg isn't obese, which would be analogous to the Mike Bettes situation.

[GordoFabulous]

You do not want the government to start regulating chasing.  That is going to cause all kinds of messes.  It'd be much better to let a little Darwinism take care of the idiotic/amateur chasers.

[Bozart]

David Hoadley, one of the fathers of chasing (he got started in the '50s), oozes class and calm. He epitomizes the best of chasing, not the pursuit of fame or flash or sizzle. No screaming. Never any screaming.

[thunderbird12]

Visibility was very poor yesterday, and with the big tornado occasionally being rain-wrapped or else shrouded in dust from the intense convergence into the circulation, chasers had to get pretty close to be able to see anything. In this case, getting close meant putting themselves inside of an exceptionally large and intense parent mesocyclone, where smaller tornadoes could spin up at any time without warning and rapid recycling could quickly produce another large tornado in a different location. Fortunately, the latter scenario never quite happened (at least nothing as strong as the initial tornado reformed), but a general lack of situational awareness put chasers in harm's way. What works 99% of the time didn't work yesterday. Hopefully those chasers that got caught in a bad spot are truly humbled by the experience and accept the blame for their predicament. Getting caught in traffic is one of the contingencies that you have to prepare for if you're chasing, and the real traffic armageddon didn't even start until the storm got closer to OKC. 

 

Speaking of the traffic armageddon, yesterday proved definitively that telling people to evacuate ahead of a tornado is a bad idea. Maybe that works for a small town of a few hundred people, but not for a major metro area. I know Mike Morgan thought he was trying to save people's lives, but he was telling them the exact wrong thing to do. Hopefully he and any others who recommended the same thing realize their mistake now. 

[DoctorMu]

TWC has a significant role (beyond Bettes' bad decisions yesterday) in the rash of envelope pushing.  Their programming has become mostly a series of freak shows...there's almost no science left...and they don't even get the forecasts right.  NOAA and our Aggie locals do far better...

[StormScotter]

What I can't square with Brandon is that he apologized on FB, but then goes on TWC and blames it all on the locals, etc.   

 

Makes the FB post feel like damage control, while his actions, video, and interview today seem to paint a more consistent picture of who he really is.

 

Only thing worse so far today has been TWC covering for what Bettis did.   Own up to your screw up instead of trying to point fingers elsewhere.  The circulation was massive on radar, no excuse for being that close.    

[IWXwx]

Idiots.

 

Both too close to begin with. Brandon drove them into the flying debris. Bettes would have been much safer had he stopped at the point where the video first started. Excuses such as heavy traffic, etc. I  call B.S. Intelligent, experienced, professional chasers plan for that. The proof is on the videos. If you are going to release the videos, be prepared for the justified criticism that will follow.

 

The police should use any such videos as evidence and charge them with reckless endangerment.

[Ed Lizard]

TWC has a significant role (beyond Bettes' bad decisions yesterday) in the rash of envelope pushing.  Their programming has become mostly a series of freak shows...there's almost no science left...and they don't even get the forecasts right.  NOAA and our Aggie locals do far better...

 

I've noted before it was a giant step back for TWC and our cable company Comcast to replace NWS forecast products with what appears to be 'rip and read' forecasts from the home office in Atlanta.  Especially bad in 'Nowcast' situations.

[Big Jims Videos]

How much $$ do news stations pay chasers for video?

[Boogieman]

I'm watching TWC this AM out of curiosity.  Must say their coverage this AM (of what happened to them last night) is pretty nauseating.  Spending 75% of their time repeatedly showing the video and, as you said, explaining why it wasn't their fault.  

 

Agreed. They were ALL to close to a unbelievably intense couplet.  No one should have been there knowing how strong and large that couplet was, and I have no doubt they all had access to the radar scans of that couplet.

 

Someone must have told Stephanie Abrams to play the "but what Mike does is making people aware and saving people's lives!" card too, because she's been saying that every 10 minutes.  She's probably a last-minute replacement to even be on TV this AM, she's not part of the usual Saturday AM crew.

 

I ask myself "how'd she ever get that gig?" every time I have the misfortune of seeing her on the air. IMO she is the comedy relief to the comedy relief. I'd go with what you said here, 100%.

 

Funny thing is: there's a (admittedly not-high end) severe threat for a rather large part of the US today.  They're spending rather little time making people aware of TODAY's threat --- you know, the whole "making people aware and saving people's lives" card.

 

Of course not. It's not "Hollywood" enough today and, besides, they still have yesterdays drama to milk.

[Paweatherguy1]

Somewhat ironic, in that ethics and morality are typically verboten in here.

 

I'd assert that the root of the behavior being discussed lies in the depersonalization that many enthusiasts have towards weather in general, and specifically extreme events ("wow look at that gorgeous tornado/hurricane/crippling blizzard/etc etc, so cool!!).  

 

Observing from the internet or TV removes one from the direct impact and consequences of "being in the way" of bad weather.  Part of the issue is probably due to media coverage, maybe our video game culture (first person shooter, I'm dead but can hit the reset button!!), or perhaps a general inability to empathize and understand unless something impacts one directly.

 

People are killed, injured and lose their property all the time due to extreme weather related events.  Some are acting like yesterday was the first time.  Some of those chasers seemed not to realize it "could happen to them" until it did.  The difference is that they put themselves in the way of the event, in some cases deliberately too close.

 

None of this should be interpreted as a critique of chasing or being a weather enthusiast or professional in the field.  People are going to do what they want to do, subject to local regulations and such.  And to the extent that chasing enhances understanding of tornado dynamics and helps warn the public, it will continue to serve a very valuable purpose.

 

But, as others have said, it's a big problem when one person's behavior or decisions puts other lives at risk.

 

I agree with the bolded on here. When I hear people on here getting all giddy about large severe weather outbreaks, and hoping that large tornados and outbreaks do occur, I cringe.

I understand we are all weather enthusiasts, and that we find this all very fascinating....but it makes me scratch my head when I hear constant whining if there is a predicted large outbreak, and for whatever reason, it does not occur. 

Whether you find it interesting or not, if a set up breaks down or a Hurricane weakens before landfall, we should all be happy....not meltingdown because you wanted to see it happen. This isn't a snowstorm where unless you are incredibly stupid, and get yourself in a situation that can get you killed, you will be fine...the people in the paths of these storms you want to see have no way sometimes of getting out of the way or staying safe.