Blue Angels Jet Crashes, Pilot KIlled:

Shirl wrote:
Big John writes:
6 hours after crash cable TV here in Houston gave his name and rank
(Lt Cmdr) and photo. Just the drive by media showing respect (

Mxsmanic wrote:
Actually, I don't see any reason to withhold the information.
Sometimes the suspense is more stressful than the certainty.
And it relieves the other families of stress more quickly.

It isn't about withholding the info to create suspense. It is about
assuring that next-of-kind of the deceased have been contacted
"officially" before they hear it on TV, on the radio or see it online.

Essentially, it's basic courtesy, if nothing else. And there's also the possibility of a
misidentification, too, in which case you've messed up _two_ families, not just one. Mx,
I'm sure you would rather hear that your (insert friend/relative here) died from someone
you know, rather than first seeing it on the news.

I wish the media wouldn't be so gleeful about showing crash footage right after an
accident. Last year, a friend of ours stalled and crashed on takeoff. We found out it
was him, not from his family or friends, but from seeing the newshounds' picture of the
crash online.

(we miss you, Leo...)

Shirl writes:

It isn't about withholding the info to create suspense. It is about
assuring that next-of-kind of the deceased have been contacted
"officially" before they hear it on TV, on the radio or see it online.

I'm not convinced that being contacted officially makes it any easier. And a
lot of people worried for quite some time before the official word was given,
which doesn't seem like a good thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Bob Martin writes:

I wish the media wouldn't be so gleeful about showing crash footage right after an
accident. Last year, a friend of ours stalled and crashed on takeoff. We found out it
was him, not from his family or friends, but from seeing the newshounds' picture of the
crash online.

They do it because they know that crash footage is what people want to see.
Dirty laundry.

People complain about it, but they rush to look at the videos of crashes. You
don't see anyone rushing to see videos of food being handed out to the poor,
or scientists discussing a new cure for a disease.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Big John writes:

Why can't we limit the media to not putting out their drivel for two
weeks.

Because the drivel is what you tune in to watch.

The media produce what people want to see. The media find news that instills
fear, uncertainty, and dread, or, failing that, they look for schadenfreude.
When people are scared, they tune in for reassurance; as long as they remain
scared, they continue to watch (and so the media takes care to never really
reassured them very much). As for schadenfreude, that's the principle in this
case: people like it when others suffer misfortunate, as it makes them feel
more warm and fuzzy about their own lives, and it makes them feel superior.

There is nothing in the first amendment that says they have to
have access to and must publish yesterday about today's activities.

Freedom of speech is the most important freedom you have. Be careful what you
wish for.

As you can tell, I'm not a freedom of the press individual and work my
best to shut the media down.

I guess having a military that fights and dies to protect that freedom doesn't
mean much to you.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 03:00:48 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Big John writes:

----clip----

I guess having a military that fights and dies to protect that freedom
doesn't mean much to you.
************************************************** **

Been there and done that (WWII, Korea, VN) not like some I hear that
think they know it all and do their fighting from the bar like the
media in Saigon did and filed hand outs from MACV (five o'clock
follies).

I'm gone.

Bye

BJ