Spectators at Incident Today

[MXGratefulDiver]

It has been said that the world would be a better place if everyone acted as though they were being videotaped at all times.

We may all be living in that world soon ... I'm not looking forward to it ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[lamont]

I hear what you all are saying, but I still support the right of someone to film in a public location if they so desire. For those who comment on someone "sticking a camera in your face", that's clearly not what I am talking about.

And if I can't find anything more useful to do, I'll exercise my right to stand right in front of the camera, and they can video my t-shirt.

Such an event is news. Would you have shut down all the cameras that pointed at the World Trade Center on 9/11? It is certainly difficult video to watch, and the vast majojrity of humans on the planet wish the event had never happened.

I'll point out the _blatantly_ obvious: we're not talking about 9/11.

For all who are referring to the legal system using video to crucify a rescuer for the slightest error, don't blame the camera. Blame the legal system. If rescuers are afraid for their wallets and chose to turn away from an accident, that's not the camera's fault. Heck, there are probably a dozen or more witnesses as well, would you have them all shut their eyes or have their memories wiped?

You can't put memories up on youtube or facebook.

It has been said that the world would be a better place if everyone acted as though they were being videotaped at all times.

Which I think is utter crap, for the reason that Bob posted. Then you won't have anyone helping. Its perfectly legal to sit around thinking "how tragic" to yourself. Are you going to want laws to compel people to attempt rescues, irregardless of their level of training or experience now? Film them if they don't react promptly, or freeze up, or miss "obvious" problems with the rescue that are caught on film?

 

[lamont]

And why not criticize the physical fitness of rescuers as well? If video evidence clearly shows that the victim would have benefited from the rescuer having done more pushups in the months prior to the rescue, find them to be negligent?

I really *DONT* want to live in your world, and so far I'm glad that I don't (yet).

 

[pnw_diver]

I'm a recently trained rescue diver - my response here is based on how I was trained, with that training still fresh in my mind. I don't profess to be an expert.

... from what I heard of the recovery they towed him in a kayak, which is definately not what I was taught in my open dive class. Rescue breaths could have been administered during the transportation.

I wasn't there and am not going to speculate on whether or not using a kayak or administering rescue breaths was called for. However, the use of watercraft and/or buoyancy aids was certainly something we were trained to do in rescue. Sometimes creativity is required.

There are cases where rescue breaths are not given, at least according to PADI standards.

When I first did my open water I do believe I was asked the question of whether to ditch the person's BC/tank/Regulator to the water and swim them to safety. I said yes and my instructor told me I was wrong.

You are taught that in open water because open water is a basic course and as an inexperienced diver you don't need a bunch of situational solutions to choose from in an emergency.

In Rescue (at least with PADI) you are taught that the decision to ditch gear is situational. Different training level, different answer.

All of that is evidence, even if it IS cumbersome to haul with a person in critical danger, if not dead. Was there something wrong with the air? Was there a problem with the regulator? The BC? If you dump it there's the possibility it'll never be found and those questions won't be answered.

This isn't even a consideration with respect to dumping gear. Not even close. It's all about quickly getting the victim to a controlled situation where aid can be rendered, without undue compromise to the rescuer's own safety.

In any case, if the diver's life support equipment is needed for the investigation, it's going to be found. It'll either be at the bottom where it can be recovered, or more likely, it's going to be floating at the surface - because prior to making the decision to whether or not to ditch the BC, the rescuer has already inflated the victim's BC and ditched his weights.

Basically, [/B]Was there something that could have been done during the recovery to help this man live?[/B]

In all probability, no. An unresponsive diver whether at the surface or underwater is almost always a dead diver.

In any dive rescue scenario where the end result is a diver fatality, the rescuers are already going to be suffering significant psychological trauma. Critiquing the rescue attempt is only going to serve to cause more distress to the rescuers who were doing the best that they could under the circumstances. Certainly there is going to be an analysis done - but it isn't going to be done on the 6 o'clock news.

Once again, many prayers to the family and thanks to those who helped.

On this, we wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Jeff Toorish]

This is a bit off the topic, but frankly, those who are negative on a journalist videotaping this incident are, in fact, anti-free press. The videographer was doing his constitutionally protected job. The fact that a video record of the incident may be helpful to divers is actually immaterial, although certainly a benefit.

When it comes to journalism, the vast majority of real news stories involve someone, maybe a lot of someones, who really, REALLY, don't want the story told. BP does not want any cameras near the Gulf of Mexico; Richard Nixon did not want Woodward and Bernstein to investigate Water gate; Cheney didn't want anyone looking into his shooting someone in the face. You get the idea.

I constantly read people blasting the media about doing a lousy job of covering scuba stories --which is true. And at the same time, when a journalist is there covering the story, divers are negative as well. How, exactly, are journalists supposed to learn to cover these stories more accurately?

I've been a journalist (newspaper, radio, TV, magazine, web) for decades and I can tell you, there are news stories, which almost always involve someone not wanting you around --and then there is just public relations.

Personally, I prefer news.

Jeff

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

Good grief!
You're lucky you didn't join the victim on the tarmac!
It is hard to tell someone who hasn't done it how utterly exhausting CPR is without help.
38 minutes is insane!
Good on you.
Rick

Thanks. It was insane. I thought I was going to collapse. Adrenaline kept me going, but 5 minutes after the ambulance finally took the little boy away, I just went black. An hour later, the hospital called to say that my husband I kept him going and he survived. It was a miracle. I am sorry that this ending was not as fortunate.

And if I can't find anything more useful to do, I'll exercise my right to stand right in front of the camera, and they can video my t-shirt.

You can't put memories up on youtube or facebook.

Which I think is utter crap, for the reason that Bob posted. Then you won't have anyone helping. Its perfectly legal to sit around thinking "how tragic" to yourself. Are you going to want laws to compel people to attempt rescues, irregardless of their level of training or experience now? Film them if they don't react promptly, or freeze up, or miss "obvious" problems with the rescue that are caught on film?

I think the worst thing possible would be for a parent or family member to have to watch their father/uncle/husband die over and over. And rest assured, they would be unable to Stop watching it. That is the worst form of torture. And the news camera may have ethics about that type of posting, but the phone holding watcher, or the random guy filming for his own class, documentary, whatever, wouldn't. Getting in their way is not censorship. It is compassion for the victim.

And you are right. If rescues were caught start to finish, you would have a huge number of people unwilling to help for fear of capricious reprisals.

This is a bit off the topic, but frankly, those who are negative on a journalist videotaping this incident are, in fact, anti-free press. The videographer was doing his constitutionally protected job. The fact that a video record of the incident may be helpful to divers is actually immaterial, although certainly a benefit.

When it comes to journalism, the vast majority of real news stories involve someone, maybe a lot of someones, who really, REALLY, don't want the story told. BP does not want any cameras near the Gulf of Mexico; Richard Nixon did not want Woodward and Bernstein to investigate Water gate; Cheney didn't want anyone looking into his shooting someone in the face. You get the idea.

I constantly read people blasting the media about doing a lousy job of covering scuba stories --which is true. And at the same time, when a journalist is there covering the story, divers are negative as well. How, exactly, are journalists supposed to learn to cover these stories more accurately?

I've been a journalist (newspaper, radio, TV, magazine, web) for decades and I can tell you, there are news stories, which almost always involve someone not wanting you around --and then there is just public relations.

Personally, I prefer news.

Jeff

I have a different opinion. There is free press and right to news, and then there is recording tragedy for the macabre's sake. People who stick out their phones because they are there, are NOT journalists. Home video is not press. They don't have the compassionate controls and limitations that the AP has here over what they can show. I live in a part of the world that allows any picture of death to be printed. IT is not needed to convey the story, believe me. These times have changed. Everyone wants to put something on Youtube. Few have the sense to use decency about it.

 

[The Chairman]

This is a bit off the topic, but frankly, those who are negative on a journalist videotaping this incident are, in fact, anti-free press.

Shenanigans! Not at all... we are pro-privacy and pro personal freedom. A person who is dying has a right to privacy and respect even though they can't enforce that right. Taking their picture without consent violates their rights. The paparazzi mindset is anathema to our personal freedoms and our health. The voyeurs who caused Princess Diana's wreck were acting under the auspices of "free press". They should be held accountable for their actions in causing the accident. We need to restore our freedom to operate without big brother (big media) watching our every move.

The videographer was doing his constitutionally protected job.

Shenanigans #2. You should take some time and actually read this document. There is no constitutional protection for violating the rights of others. This is why cameras are often prohibited from the court room.

Part of being a rescuer is controlling the scene and this includes crowd control. Don't try to do it all yourself: delegate! Ask bystanders to create a privacy wall to keep intrusive voyeurs from being able to rape the victim's rights. This kind of intrusion is disgusting and counter productive to assisting the victim in their time of greatest need.

 

[bamamedic]

I know that if I were a drowning victim, the last thing I'd want was for a bunch of voyeuristic bystanders to whip out their cell phones and start recording my dying breath. There is a time and a place for everything, and that just isn't an appropriate time for the amateur YouTubers to start filming video to upload.

If you were in that position, would you want your lifeless corpse videotaped by complete strangers and potentially posted on the internet for all to see and comment on? For your family to find days later as they try to slowly work through the grieving process? If the answer is "no", then there's no need for the cell phone show so common to accident scenes. Some things should genuinely remain as much of a private matter as possible.

I totally understand that there's a need for videojournalism....I'm thinking of the graphic footage of war torn countries that helps the rest of the world open their eyes to the horrors befalling another person. However, what's to be accomplished with a crappy, grainy, poorly focused cell phone video of a drowning victim? There's no reason to show that kind of stuff...no higher purpose.

That poor diver's family is going to remember the day they identified Dad in the morgue for the rest of their lives...do we really need to give them a full color photo of their loved one being pulled out of the water. The rescuers are going to remember every vivid detail for the rest of their lives and will replay every decision while wondering to themselves if they could have done anything differently - a video of the rescue won't serve to teach anything of value.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

This is a bit off the topic, but frankly, those who are negative on a journalist videotaping this incident are, in fact, anti-free press. The videographer was doing his constitutionally protected job. The fact that a video record of the incident may be helpful to divers is actually immaterial, although certainly a benefit.

When it comes to journalism, the vast majority of real news stories involve someone, maybe a lot of someones, who really, REALLY, don't want the story told. BP does not want any cameras near the Gulf of Mexico; Richard Nixon did not want Woodward and Bernstein to investigate Water gate; Cheney didn't want anyone looking into his shooting someone in the face. You get the idea.

I constantly read people blasting the media about doing a lousy job of covering scuba stories --which is true. And at the same time, when a journalist is there covering the story, divers are negative as well. How, exactly, are journalists supposed to learn to cover these stories more accurately?

I've been a journalist (newspaper, radio, TV, magazine, web) for decades and I can tell you, there are news stories, which almost always involve someone not wanting you around --and then there is just public relations.

Personally, I prefer news.

Jeff

Do you really consider some bystander with a cell phone and a desire to be the next hit on YouTube to be a journalist?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Rick Murchison]

Do you really consider some bystander with a cell phone and a desire to be the next hit on YouTube to be a journalist?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Do you really consider today's "journalists" journalists???

Rick