Instructor bent after running out of air at 40m

[Diver0001]

Enjoy shedding this story ...

The scuba dive that crushed my spine

It had been meticulously planned - a deep dive for four experienced scuba diving instructors. But halfway through the session, two oxygen tanks ran out, setting off a catastrophic chain of events.

So meticulously planned that not one but two out of gas ... then all four.

Well.... to make a long response as short as I can, I guess we have to assume that the diver is feeding the BBC this story for some reason that only he truly understands.

What bothers me about it is the "journalism". We've reached a point at which many journalists have degraded their craft to the level of an automated stenotype machine. No critical thinking, no questions, no follow up questions, no research, little to no affinity for the subject matter, etc. etc.

And just like an automated stenotype machine, the first law of computing science applies. Garbage in - Garbage out.

Nothing about this article makes the first bit of sense. A proper journalist would have figured that out.

R..

 

[doctormike]

What bothers me about it is the "journalism". We've reached a point at which many journalists have degraded their craft to the level of an automated stenotype machine. No critical thinking, no questions, no follow up questions, no research, little to no affinity for the subject matter, etc. etc.

Not sure whose original quote this is, but it has been making the rounds:

"Journalism 101: If someone says it's raining and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the &*$%#ing window and find out which is true"

 

[Diver0001]

Not sure whose original quote this is, but it has been making the rounds:

"Journalism 101: If someone says it's raining and another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the &*$%#ing window and find out which is true"

Actually, I've become very cynical about it. A "good" reporter in the view of news agency employers is one who makes more money than they cost to employ. Therefore the right answer to the question of which assertions the reporter should report is "the ones that people will pay more to hear".... from the employer's point of view.

Journalism is dead. After seeing the BBC publish this I have literally lost all hope.

R..

 

[Narcoz]

A person who claims to have been working at Taba dive centre when this happened posted a comment on the BBC FB post. I've hidden the person's name as I'm not sure what this forum's policy is on privacy etc., but you can find the original post and comments here.

Obviously take those comments for what they're worth though his profile (and his wife's) do suggest they worked at that Taba diving centre so who knows...

 

[Storker]

Nothing about this article makes the first bit of sense. A proper journalist would have figured that out.

Do you really expect a journalist - who's supposed to be a jack of all trades (and thus a master of none) - to QC something as specialized as scuba diving?

You obviously have a greater trust in humanity than I have.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I don't know much about journalistic standards, but how much technical knowledge should be required of a journalist in a case like this? This was presented more as a human interest story, focusing on the disability the accident left the diver with, than a straight report of a dive accident. The journalist interviewed the four participants, who are self-described "experienced" instructors, and who corroborated each other's story. Is more than that required by the standards of journalism?

 

[Aviyes]

Already been/being discussed in another thread.
Instructor bent after running out of air at 40m

 

[doctormike]

Well, up to a point. I mean, what if the story was about someone who paralyzed in an automobile accident, and they said something like "we had planned for the road to be straight, but there was an unexpected curve in the road, and driving into that tree was a surprise but unavoidable".

Also, we really are discussing the accident itself here, and the better source for that is the transcript of the interview with the diver's own words, not the original article.

 

[Scuba_Aaron]

I don't know much about journalistic standards, but how much technical knowledge should be required of a journalist in a case like this? This was presented more as a human interest story, focusing on the disability the accident left the diver with, than a straight report of a dive accident. The journalist interviewed the four participants, who are self-described "experienced" instructors, and who corroborated each other's story. Is more than that required by the standards of journalism?

That's right on point right there. Non-divers saw a tragic story and divers saw idiocy.

 

[dmaziuk]

Actually, I've become very cynical about it. A "good" reporter in the view of news agency employers is one who makes more money than they cost to employ. Therefore the right answer to the question of which assertions the reporter should report is "the ones that people will pay more to hear".... from the employer's point of view.

Journalism is dead. After seeing the BBC publish this I have literally lost all hope.

Oh, I dunno... this story would have worked just fine if it were Stephen Colbert reporting it for the Daily Show. Alas, those days are long gone, too, so yeah. We're doomed.