Storm Chasing and Media Coverage Ethics

[WNash]

As long as they accept that risk, who are we to judge?

Well, because there is potential offset of their contribution, that they will be consuming very scarce resources for rescue and relief. It's a totally valid issue. For Josh (and I'm glad you are ok, dude, don't get me wrong), the personal thrill more gives him certainty and overcomes any ethical challenge... and he and the others described literally life saving efforts that demonstrate their commitment to helping people when the chips are down. But obviously chasers cannot control for nearly all risks and the ethical balance is still a matter of question when so much depends upon luck. So the relativistic question ("who are we to judge" is moot) -- it's not just about an individual chaser's assumption of risk vs reward but a social cost.

[PSUBlizzicane2007]

Or alternatively

Finally a chasing/weather enthusiast thread being enhanced by people seeing the bigger picture.

 

Not really.  See Below.

 

Knowing Josh I doubt he would want us to mess with the thread flow. He has always been honest with his motives to anyone who asks. I think a lot of folks probably just don't get it.

 

True on that...and yeah a lot of people don't get it, but it's going to be pointless to stand on a soapbox and lecture him when he's been lectured to by such people 1000 times before and is tired of responding to it.

 

What is the "bigger picture"?

Serious questions:

I would like to know what the "scientific data/ research" gathered from this storm, or any other storm while it passes directly overhead  (ground zero) is worth compared to the data gathered from hurricane hunter aircraft or other instruments for hours and days prior to the coming on shore.  Does being at ground zero for a few hours while the storm passes overhead really offer any eye opening revelations?  Does it really matter what the pressure is as the eye passes over a specific urban or other area of land, etc.?  Is this info worth obtaining and for what reasons?

 

 

 

The bigger picture:

 

1.  He saved many people's lives...as he said.. and him and the other chasers put their lives on the line to do that.  That's pretty damn heroic of him, and I'm sure the people who are alive today because of him and the others are quite appreciative of that fact.

 

2.  The scientific data.  There is an extreme lack of data in this area of the world..and there is no aircraft reconnaissance.  Even scraps of data on such a cyclone like this is worth so, so much to the meteorological community.

 

Yeah he had to use the military helicopter resource to get to Cebu City... but considering the two points above (especially if the data is shared with PAGASA which I'm sure it will)... I'm pretty confident you can say that helicopter ride has been paid for.

[nwburbschaser]

Well, because there is potential offset of their contribution, that they will be consuming very scarce resources for rescue and relief. It's a totally valid issue. For Josh (and I'm glad you are ok, dude, don't get me wrong), the personal thrill more gives him certainty and overcomes any ethical challenge... and he and the others described literally life saving efforts that demonstrate their commitment to helping people when the chips are down. But obviously chasers cannot control for nearly all risks and the ethical balance is still a matter of question when so much depends upon luck. So the relativistic question ("who are we to judge" is moot) -- it's not just about an individual chaser's assumption of risk vs reward but a social cost.

 

Are three people out of 221,000 in that town really going to impact the relief effort in a negative way? Be realistic here and get off the high horse, we need to move on because this debate is pointless. I feel somewhat stupid for even commenting on it. 

[Rjay]

Are three people out of 221,000 in that town really going to impact the relief effort in a negative way? Be realistic here and get off the high horse, we need to move on because this debate is pointless. I feel somewhat stupid for even commenting on it.

There's no way they took resources away from anyone. This whole discussion is a joke.

[Arnold214]

Are three people out of 221,000 in that town really going to impact the relief effort in a negative way? Be realistic here and get off the high horse, we need to move on because this debate is pointless. I feel somewhat stupid for even commenting on it.

well said. These debates happen all the time with respect to hurricane and tornado chases...zzzzzzzzzz.

[Buckeye05]

There's no way they took resources away from anyone. This whole discussion is a joke.

Agreed. If you don't like it, then stay off of this thread, because this is what Josh does. Simple as that.

[H2O]

Here's an indisputable fact. The storm was going to happen whether josh was there or not. What he can share with us after the fact is cool in my book.

[eyewall]

I think we need a new thread. I am guilty of chiming in as well, but at this point we won't solve anything. I would like to see the video and data without having to sift through 30 pages of crap to find it . The debate is all well and good but probably should be taken elsewhere at this point.

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

To me, the ethical question comes down to this: Should you go on a chase where's there a likelihood that you would need to be rescued/evacuated by outside assistance after the storm is over? 

 

I have an opinion. What do the rest of you think?

 

This is what he does. It is no different than the countless thousands of police, fire, and military personnel that risk their lives for what they do and we are darn glad they do so. You will not hear a police officer say, "I am not going to work today. I might put myself at risk" No, they do this because they love what they do and they want to make a difference. So quit judging folks for loving the chase and going to extreme measures to make a difference.

[gymengineer]

This is what he does. It is no different than the countless thousands of police, fire, and military personnel that risk their lives for what they do and we are darn glad they do so. You will not hear a police officer say, "I am not going to work today. I might put myself at risk" No, they do this because they love what they do and they want to make a difference. So quit judging folks for loving the chase and going to extreme measures to make a difference.

I didn't actually state how I would answer that question in this thread... Just pointed out the difference of chasing in a scenario where you do not control your own escape. So in that sense, I do not see why one would need to view all chasing under the same umbrella (vs. the US, Japan, parts of Mexico, Taiwan, etc.)

You know, I think people who read this thread starting overnight "saw" what the trigger was to the whole discussion and why that poster felt that way, agree or disagree. Then the comments went in two paths, defending the poster vs. calling him out. It was the later posters in this thread who tried to generalize the conversation to about chasing.

[WNash]

This is what he does. It is no different than the countless thousands of police, fire, and military personnel that risk their lives for what they do and we are darn glad they do so. You will not hear a police officer say, "I am not going to work today. I might put myself at risk" No, they do this because they love what they do and they want to make a difference. So quit judging folks for loving the chase and going to extreme measures to make a difference.

Poor analogy. Chasers are not public safety officers or military, and do not have training, command structure, resources, protocol, etc., but most importantly have not been commissioned with the powers to carry out such duties, unlike with police officers, firefighters, soldiers, sailors, and marines.

That doesn't take away from the good they do but either we are moving past this discussion here or we are not-- distortions such as this do not help.

[WNash]

I didn't actually state how I would answer that question in this thread... Just pointed out the difference of chasing in a scenario where you do not control your own escape. So in that sense, I do not see why one would need to view all chasing under the same umbrella (vs. the US, Japan, parts of Mexico, Taiwan, etc.)

You know, I think people who read this thread starting overnight "saw" what the trigger was to the whole discussion and why that poster felt that way, agree or disagree. Then the comments went in two paths, defending the poster vs. calling him out. It was the later posters in this thread who tried to generalize the conversation to about chasing.

I'd even say that the generalization is down to people who have reduced this to the idea that any questioning of this particular event is out of line because chasing is a categorically beneficial activity-- the extent to which this has become repetitive is largely on the attempt to squelch things.

[Diego]

Poor analogy. Chasers are not public safety officers or military, and do not have training, command structure, resources, protocol, etc., but most importantly have not been commissioned with the powers to carry out such duties, unlike with police officers, firefighters, soldiers, sailors, and marines.

That doesn't take away from the good they do but either we are moving past this discussion here or we are not-- distortions such as this do not help.

I think it all boils down to a simple cost benefit analysis. Do the benefits (scientific research gains/human interest) outweigh the costs/burdens(added stress to the rescue infrastructure). The answer is obvious.

[cut]

Time for a thread called 'the ethics and morality of storm chasing and being in a disaster zone'.  This thread sucks for those of that are trying to get accurate accounting of what happened with the storm!!!

[The_Global_Warmer]

I want to say that.  I am glad that they did what did while they were there.  

 

I apologize for being very judgmental without explaining myself first.  

 

I am sorry for being one sided in my POV only.  But I am also hard wired to react differently than others.  It's hard sometimes to see others POV when I am driven to react in a way based off strong moral and ethical ideals and obviously that is my belief system.  So I have to do it or suffer with regret. I can't help it.  I have tried to not be so compassionate and empathetic but it just consumes me.  

 

So much so when I saw the Indian Man on tv who gave up his life to help feed homeless people in India.  I had no choice but to experience it myself.  I saw how selfish that was.  And have worked hard to make amends for it since.  In doing so you learn so much about life and how special it is.  And reinforces those beliefs and values.

 

I am an addict and thrill seeker too.  I get it.  Anyone who has to get he rush of dopamine is in the game.  It can come from amphetamines, coke, other drugs whatever but it can also come from weather events or rock climbing, extreme sports.

 

We all get some how well I think most of us do.  So I get it.  It would be bad ass to be there.  But then the devastation is horrible.  How conflicting.  

[WNash]

I'll say something that made me rethink my presentation of my enthusiasm for extreme weather events. I'm putting it here because of the inevitable scorn and response of denial it would get in the relevant thread.

A friend of my wife is a cancer researcher. When she heard me getting excited about a hurricane last year, she asked me what the thrill was, and why I articulated that thrill in such personal terms. I gave her our usual song and dance about the fact that the weather is independent of our actions and nothing I could do would change that etc etc and she absolutely tore me down, saying that no researcher she knows would ever use expressions like "hawt" to describe a instance of a rare type of tumor they were studying. We have totally lost perspective and we tell each other this appalling cover story about the pursuit of knowledge as a defense mechanism.

[Will - Rutgers]

This thread is a bit **** but I would like to ask a question. What kind of value does Josh's data provide? Since part of the cyclone is interacting with land once he takes the lowest pressure reading and he's not in the center, would the NHC or whoever use this to extrapolate the pressure at landfall, or could they also use it along with some satellite-based estimates of weakening to guess the pressure at maximum strength? It is cool he got this data but I really mostly care about the peak of this monster and man I wish there was a plane in there.

[wxsmwhrms]

This thread is a bit **** but I would like to ask a question. What kind of value does Josh's data provide? Since part of the cyclone is interacting with land once he takes the lowest pressure reading and he's not in the center, would the NHC or whoever use this to extrapolate the pressure at landfall, or could they also use it along with some satellite-based estimates of weakening to guess the pressure at maximum strength? It is cool he got this data but I really mostly care about the peak of this monster and man I wish there was a plane in there.

Well, it's a heck of a lot better than nothing, which is what we would have without folks like Josh being willing to go in there.  As was mentioned by Josh himself, data that he has obtained has helped NHC more accurately gauge the intensity of storms in its area in post-analysis - and this helps in future forecasting efforts.  Such data would be even more important in a location like the Philippines where there is less data available and no aircraft recon.  For example, if Josh had a barometer that read say 890 mb versus 930 mb I think that would go a long way toward telling us just how intense Haiyan really was.

[crossthread]

 

^{I'm going throw a bone, chime in on these Bash Josh & chaser Folks...   One; your NOT thinking... Those C-130's & Choppers were initially Bringing IN, Food/Supplies & People/Teams, to those affected by this remarkable storm... Going out bound, yes they ARE going to be *empty*, taking those who WANT to get out of the AO, who may have families elsewhere in the Islands that they can go to. Those who are here "Bitching", THINK, You take a "plane-load" of very poor people out, How in the H**L are they to get back? This is why it appears, as someone pointed out, You could have a 3 ringed circus inside the plane.. I notice Pictures & video, that people that "came-in" were ONLY taking pictures/Video & NOT helping to save lives what-so-ever, THEY are in fact, "taking up space-resources" in IN-BOUND flights/choppers that could otherwise be ferrying doctors/supplies in their place.. SAME with News crews world-wide flocking to the area(s) of devastation; why not instead ferry in supplies instead of news teams? I hate to say, I know you got good intentions, but your thinking is backwards.}

 

^{That said, Glad your OK Josh, Chasers et al, Hope ya'll got some very valuable WX information to share with the WX community..}

^CT   

[ncforecaster89]

I'm quite surprised that this topic is still being debated. Yes, I realize this post is only going to keep it going I suppose, but there's a difference between ones opinion and certain undeniable facts. There's no need to try and spin things like I see being done here.

That being said, the following comments are by no means meant to be a knock against Josh, James, Mark, and Jim Edds during this chase, nor are they meant to be disparaging towards any other chaser who may choose to intercept a storm (myself included).

As I stated earlier, it's absurd to suggest that any of us were actually "needed" there in Tacloban City during this chase. The fact is that there were already plenty of news organizations already covering this event. They were the ones who got the first word out to the public, and the world, about how bad it was-not any of the storm chasers. We had already seen tons of video, pics, and heard numerous reports of how bad the destruction and surge appeared to be, long before we ever heard about whether any of the chasers had actually survived. So, it's wholly inaccurate for anyone to suggest that we wouldn't have had any video, or known just how bad the situation was there, if the chasers hadn't intercepted this storm. That's just simply complete BS.

It's fine for the chasers to just simply acknowledge the fact that they went there, first and foremost, to experience the storm-which Josh himself already acknowledged. Our desire to obtain meteorological obs and the documentation of these storms being a genuine secondary endeavor. As a fellow chaser, I understand these desires.

[ncforecaster89]

That aside, I do view things a little differently now, than I did before my Sandy intercept. As I was documenting the immense devastation along the NJ coast, I felt led to offer my assistance to those who had essentially lost everything. Since that moment, I have made a personal commitment to donate at least three full days of physical labor, and whatever other assistance I may be able provide, to any area from which I have documented the storm. In Sandy, I chose to stay a full week (in central NJ) doing just that. As Tulliox alluded to in his posts, I too believe that this is the very least we can do. When we, as chasers, travel to these areas and rush out as soon as we are able, it does give the impression that we are being "selfish", and I would argue it's a fair criticism. Looking back, I have to admit this to be true for me, as well-although I never consciously thought about it that way.

While multitudes of people are still dealing with the turmoil of losing loved ones and/or dealing with the grief of losing virtually everything they had, what do most of us chasers do? While we quickly leave the devastation behind, we make an asserted effort to quickly post our videos online and share OUR stories. We also seek out various media outlets in order to draw attention to our work. In the process, we may garner our 15 minutes of fame and make a little money. This is an undeniable reality for many, if not most, chasers. If people were being completely objective and sensitive to the way chasing could be perceived, for the aforementioned reasons, then they should be far more understanding and sympathetic to the views expressed by those such as Tulliox. Just saying.

In reality, there's really no way for us to legitimately debate whether or not the people the chasers assisted would've actually perished if they didn't help or whether or not the quick assistance provided for them could've been at the expense of others-that could've been helped instead. In both cases, I tend to suggest it likely made very little difference either way-all things considered. Since they were there, I'm most certainly glad they did help, and commend them for it. Of course, I do think it was a little unnecessary to record that humanitarian effort (I.e drawing unnecessary attention to ourselves when helping others).

Hopefully, we can just simply all move on from this debate.

[FPizz]

^{I'm going throw a bone, chime in on these Bash Josh & chaser Folks... One; your NOT thinking... Those C-130's & Choppers were initially Bringing IN, Food/Supplies & People/Teams, to those affected by this remarkable storm... Going out bound, yes they ARE going to be *empty*, taking those who WANT to get out of the AO, who may have families elsewhere in the Islands that they can go to. Those who are here "Bitching", THINK, You take a "plane-load" of very poor people out, How in the H**L are they to get back? This is why it appears, as someone pointed out, You could have a 3 ringed circus inside the plane.. I notice Pictures & video, that people that "came-in" were ONLY taking pictures/Video & NOT helping to save lives what-so-ever, THEY are in fact, "taking up space-resources" in IN-BOUND flights/choppers that could otherwise be ferrying doctors/supplies in their place.. SAME with News crews world-wide flocking to the area(s) of devastation; why not instead ferry in supplies instead of news teams? I hate to say, I know you got good intentions, but your thinking is backwards.}

^{That said, Glad your OK Josh, Chasers et al, Hope ya'll got some very valuable WX information to share with the WX community..}

^CT

A picture or a video lasts a few seconds. Maybe the rest of the 23 and a half hours per day the people are helping.

[WNash]

It's unfortunate that it is extremely difficult to post comments in that forum (I got repeatedly timed out). The reality is that the reporter who wrote the story, the chasers, and those they helped rescue know what actually took place. The keyboard and phone snipers who are so eagerly blasting away know little or nothing, even as their ignorance produces arrogance that appears to rival their hostility. Perhaps none of those critics have ever saved even a single life, much less in highly adverse conditions. Perhaps many or all of them would be unwilling to take even a modest degree of risk to save a life.

 

P.S. My message finally posted. Unfortunately, it appeared at the top after I had referenced messages above mine.

 

It's an open question whether real bravery is merely the absence of cowardice, or if it is something far beyond what a normal person would do. Josh is no coward, we all know that ... and he has the video, which you can see a sample of on the news. But he left the scene, he's flogging his videos, and he's going to take criticism. That's the way it is. You going after his critics-- and you don't know who they are! who knows, they might be EMTs and save more lives every day than Josh-- for pointing that out is presuming Josh doesn't have a thick skin, and he wouldn't be doing this if he hadn't decided already that the thrill meant more to him than any downside. Nobody insulting him on the internet is going to matter-- I saw the guy filming on the damn open balcony while winds that were at least 115 knots were lashing the building, with nothing to stop any debris from hitting him. Now THAT takes some sack. Who cares about about an argument about ethics on the internet after you go through that, right?

 

josh can keep making storm porn for us lol.

 

For all the nonsense I may talk, I am in awe at Josh. Dude is LEGEND. But this is what I hate. Yeah who cares what happens as long as I sit on my ass at home and get my rocks off.

[donsutherland1]

It's an open question whether real bravery is merely the absence of cowardice, or if it is something far beyond what a normal person would do. Josh is no coward, we all know that ... and he has the video, which you can see a sample of on the news. But he left the scene, he's flogging his videos, and he's going to take criticism. That's the way it is. You going after his critics-- and you don't know who they are! who knows, they might be EMTs and save more lives every day than Josh-- for pointing that out is presuming Josh doesn't have a thick skin, and he wouldn't be doing this if he hadn't decided already that the thrill meant more to him than any downside. Nobody insulting him on the internet is going to matter-- I saw the guy filming on the damn open balcony while winds that were at least 115 knots were lashing the building, with nothing to stop any debris from hitting him. Now THAT takes some sack. Who cares about about an argument about ethics on the internet after you go through that, right?

 

 

For all the nonsense I may talk, I am in awe at Josh. Dude is LEGEND. But this is what I hate. Yeah who cares what happens as long as I sit on my ass at home and get my rocks off.

To be sure, I have no objections to reasoned debate/discussion. But in the particular aol forum, one is dealing with little more than outright hostility. Moreover, it's abundantly clear that the two critics whom I had in mind (Nebrostx and Junior) had little or no idea what they were talking about.

 

The plane that took the chasers out of the area did so only after having delivered supplies. There was no zero-sum issue where Josh and the others took others' places on the plane (news photos showing the injured chaser revealed available room for others). One individual (Junior) suggested that if the chasers weren't there, the people would have survived anyhow. An experienced first responder would never make such a statement. Without one's having been on the scene and having intimate knowledge of the circumstances, one simply lacks the information to make such a statement, much less with such certainty. What one does know is that the chasers helped save lives.

[cmichweather]

I'm quite surprised that this topic is still being debated. Yes, I realize this post is only going to keep it going I suppose, but there's a difference between ones opinion and certain undeniable facts. There's no need to try and spin things like I see being done here.

That being said, the following comments are by no means meant to be a knock against Josh, James, Mark, and Jim Edds during this chase, nor are they meant to be disparaging towards any other chaser who may choose to intercept a storm (myself included).

As I stated earlier, it's absurd to suggest that any of us were actually "needed" there in Tacloban City during this chase. The fact is that there were already plenty of news organizations already covering this event. They were the ones who got the first word out to the public, and the world, about how bad it was-not any of the storm chasers. We had already seen tons of video, pics, and heard numerous reports of how bad the destruction and surge appeared to be, long before we ever heard about whether any of the chasers had actually survived. So, it's wholly inaccurate for anyone to suggest that we wouldn't have had any video, or known just how bad the situation was there, if the chasers hadn't intercepted this storm. That's just simply complete BS.

It's fine for the chasers to just simply acknowledge the fact that they went there, first and foremost, to experience the storm-which Josh himself already acknowledged. Our desire to obtain meteorological obs and the documentation of these storms being a genuine secondary endeavor. As a fellow chaser, I understand these desires.

That aside, I do view things a little differently now, than I did before my Sandy intercept. As I was documenting the immense devastation along the NJ coast, I felt led to offer my assistance to those who had essentially lost everything. Since that moment, I have made a personal commitment to donate at least three full days of physical labor, and whatever other assistance I may be able provide, to any area from which I have documented the storm. In Sandy, I chose to stay a full week (in central NJ) doing just that. As Tulliox alluded to in his posts, I too believe that this is the very least we can do. When we, as chasers, travel to these areas and rush out as soon as we are able, it does give the impression that we are being "selfish", and I would argue it's a fair criticism. Looking back, I have to admit this to be true for me, as well-although I never consciously thought about it that way.

While multitudes of people are still dealing with the turmoil of losing loved ones and/or dealing with the grief of losing virtually everything they had, what do most of us chasers do? While we quickly leave the devastation behind, we make an asserted effort to quickly post our videos online and share OUR stories. We also seek out various media outlets in order to draw attention to our work. In the process, we may garner our 15 minutes of fame and make a little money. This is an undeniable reality for many, if not most, chasers.

If people were being completely objective and sensitive to the way chasing could be perceived, for the aforementioned reasons, then they should be far more understanding and sympathetic to the views expressed by those such as Tulliox. Just saying.

In reality, there's really no way for us to legitimately debate whether or not the people the chasers assisted would've actually perished if they didn't help or whether or not the quick assistance provided for them could've been at the expense of others-that could've been helped instead. In both cases, I tend to suggest it likely made very little difference either way-all things considered. Since they were there, I'm most certainly glad they did help, and I commend them for their efforts. Of course, I do think it was a little unnecessary to record that humanitarian effort (I.e drawing unnecessary attention to ourselves when helping others).

Hopefully, we can just simply all move on from this debate.

I always wonder why we don't have a program that is operated by NOAA that supplies calibrated instruments to measure conditions to news stations that report live. I mean we saw the news anchor in the Philippines reporting in the middle of the storm and most news reporters are willing to get close to the eye. Give them instruments that report from ground zero and are actually measuring the eye's pressure. 

 

Also 20 years from now and all tornadoes and hurricanes are now sampled by drones that take measurements. Do we still have chasers claiming to be chasing for any reason other than the thrill?

[WNash]

Still stunned by the insensitivity, though. When I read people here call a video of a catastrophe that killed 1000s "storm porn" (http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/41323-icyclone-typhoon-chasing-expedition-oct-2013/?p=2469269) -- and not in an ironic way -- I feel that there are some seriously insane priorities. Yeah, it's just one person saying that BS, but the community doesn't condemn THAT person. Instead, the condemnation is directed at the folks who raise issues of chase ethics "in the wrong forum." 

 

It may be just an issue of optics, but if the outside world took a look at Josh's followers, I think it would be absolutely disgusted.

[brettjrob]

Still stunned by the insensitivity, though. When I read people here call a video of a catastrophe that killed 1000s "storm porn" (http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/41323-icyclone-typhoon-chasing-expedition-oct-2013/?p=2469269) -- and not in an ironic way -- I feel that there are some seriously insane priorities. Yeah, it's just one person saying that BS, but the community doesn't condemn THAT person. Instead, the condemnation is directed at the folks who raise issues of chase ethics "in the wrong forum." 

 

It may be just an issue of optics, but if the outside world took a look at Josh's followers, I think it would be absolutely disgusted.

 

It's all a matter of the perspective you choose. To be honest, the exchange with your wife's friend that you related a couple posts up did absolutely nothing to move me or change my opinion on this topic. By the same token, I'm not appalled in the least at the "storm porn" quote regarding the typhoon video. It probably wasn't the best choice of words to write publicly, but no biggie. The sentiment is there among all enthusiasts whether we voice it or not, and there's really nothing wrong with that. If someone regards the "porn" as being close-ups of lifeless bodies, then maybe I can see your point, but I've yet to come across that in the weather community.

 

I find that over time, I care less and less to bother defending either chasing or simple weather enthusiasm to anyone who takes issue with them. Everyone on this earth relishes in one thing or another that happens to have devastating impacts upon someone else. As I see it, enjoying extreme weather is actually one of the most innocent and blameless ways that can happen. The main reason our hobby gets so much backlash is simply because it's outside the mainstream. People in general are always looking for reasons to disparage behavior or dispositions that aren't what they're used to or don't have a societal stamp of approval. Meanwhile, equally- or more-reprehensible behavior that happens to be mainstream gets a pass.

 

As such, I just don't care anymore. I accept that most people don't understand our hobby at all, and that a certain fraction of them will take offense. That's fine, so long as I'm still physically free to pursue it anyway.

[WNash]

The thing is, I'm fascinated with this stuff too. But I'm more sensitive to appearances than the most vocal enthusiasts here. I really think we're missing something here if we don't alter our discourse. And the hackles that get raised at any self-criticism are just not how a healthy self-sustaining group of people act. I have a few odd hobbies, and I have friends who have weirder ones than me, but they take pains to present themselves in a way that follows some social decorum and norms. Militaria collecting, for instance, has a whole protocol around collecting and displaying Nazi artifacts because of obvious sensitivities. Yet any practice of self-evaluation in our community is marginalized and distorted and ridiculed. It's going to take a PR disaster to change things, and even that may only happen at the site level.

[Visiteur]

 

 

There are comments over the top on both sides. Reading the threads has convinced me that Josh is somewhere between Mother Teresa and Satan himself. Basically, thrill seekers are never welcome at disaster sites. By his own admission, that is exactly what Josh is. I'm not condemning him at all, and he did some good while he was there, but he will get the reactions he is getting every single time.

 

 

Exactly. The iCyclone team are not saints. They are thrill seekers that just got their "chase of a lifetime". Regarding the lives they saved, it's commendable, but they were only doing what responsible human beings would do. He may be enjoying the fame now, and some people on this site will idolize him, but no one should be surprised if he gets some chilly reactions from the general public, now and always.

 

The main reason storm-chasing gets disparaged by the general public has nothing to do with it being outside the mainstream, it's that chasers too often determine the value of an event by the destruction wreaked and the lives lost, acting as if they need that proof of just how terrible of a storm it was.

[brettjrob]

The main reason storm-chasing gets disparaged by the general public has nothing to do with it being outside the mainstream, it's that chasers too often determine the value of an event by the destruction wreaked and the lives lost, acting as if they need that proof of just how terrible of a storm it was.

 

Oh; is that why? I'm a chaser myself, and I don't even know whether that attitude is widespread among chasers or not. I've seen evidence of it in a few people, but a clear minority. I can't imagine the general public has the faintest clue what percentage enjoy the death and destruction. Perhaps they believe it's a large problem based on misinformation or knee-jerk emotional reactions, which is a different issue. If you can point to high-profile public appearances or interviews where someone conveyed this attitude, I'm all ears.

 

Furthermore, I completely stand by my opinion about mainstream behavior getting a pass. Why does CNN always over-inflate the body count in the moments after a plane crash or mass shooting is reported? Because millions of Americans are glued to the TV getting their "disaster porn" -- and the bigger the number, the more likely they get off! How about rubberneckers that snarl traffic in every major city every single evening while passing fatal crashes?

 

Neither of those behaviors is really defensible, and my point is not to defend storm chasing by placing it in the same category. Disaster porn and rubbernecking are unequivocally worse; yet, they're viewed as completely acceptable and a minor nuisance, respectively, by the public at large.

 

I know for a fact that destruction has zero to do with why I enjoy chasing, and I have a strong suspicion (through experience) that the same holds true for a solid majority of chasers. Field an anonymous, private survey of 100 chasers, and I'd wager most would be delighted to have every tornado strike wheat fields, if only because the logistics involved in seeing it are so much simpler.

 

There are always a few bad apples, though, and I don't doubt there exist chasers like you describe -- as with any group of more than two or three people.