Originally Posted By gadzuux Today's SF chronicle has a headline that lauds the guy who died in the oregon wilderness as a "hero" and talks of his "brilliance". I don't see it. I understand that it's uncharitable to speak ill of the dead, but for over a week now we've been hearing about the circumstances of the Kim family and their harrowing plight. Why? Because this guy drove his family out into the wilderness on a forest service road, passing three signs along the way that warned of snowdrifts blocking the road. This isn't heroic or brilliant, it's foolish and cavalier. Once stuck, he leaves to find help and heads deep down into valleys. Most "brilliant" people would realize that temps are at their lowest and snow is at its deepest at the bottom of a valley. Yet that's where he goes - leaving all remnants of civilization and dooming his chances of being discovered. Yes, it's a sad story. But it was his own poorly considered actions that imperiled his wife and babies, and ultimately led to his own death. This isn't heroic. This isn't brilliance. This is stupidity compounded onto itself. And I haven't heard the least hint of this sentiment in the weeks of coverage.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, I'll maybe give the guy a "bye" on this one since he lives in California, and what do Californians know about the cold? ;-) But in Minnesota, we would judge him pretty much as you have. He violated just about everything you are supposed to do when it comes to traveling in that type of weather.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I always get annoyed at these types of stories. People can risk their own lives all they want, but rescue workers have to risk their lives to save them. (Not to mention the financial cost.) Obviously, accidents happen, but when a hiker intentionally passes into "do not enter" areas, it's hard to empathize with them. But, we all make dumb choices in our lives. I put myself in incredibly dangerous situations when I was a young adult...it was dumb luck that I wasn't hurt more than I was. Unfortunately, as human beings, we often have a hard time believing that something bad will happen to us.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If we were to say, at just about every funeral, all the things a person did that contriubuted to the end of their life (foolish choices reagrding eating and exercise, or risky activities like skiing or scuba diving, etc.) then I suppose that most people would be responsible in a lot of ways for their own demise. The truth is, almost all of us at some point 'luck out' and don't wind up dead from a mistake we've made. Mr. Kim did what he could to try and get hel for his family. He was in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. If he stays in the car with the family, and they all perish, some would wonder why he didn't at least try to get help. And whether he went about it the right way or not, it's too easy to sit back and judge him for it. The cold, and hunger, and the stark realization that you are in the most serious trouble of your life, are all going to affect a person's ability to remain logical, or brilliant. He died attempting to get his family rescued. What's the point in wagging a finger at him now, second-guessing his actions, assigning blame? His family and friends will suffer tremendously already, his wife will probably spend the rest of her life second-guessing and blaming herself. Why compound that hell?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Well, he's dead now, so one less stupid person for you to worry about.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I just saw a news clip about this story. The newscaster gave us some tips about surviving including this gem "don't eat unmelted snow, it will just make you colder" and she re-iterated "eating snow it will bring down your body temperature." Shocking, no?!
Originally Posted By ecdc I don't know enough about the story to know whether you're right or not, gadzuux. But I do think it raises an important point about sentimentality in the media that we lap up at an incredible speed. If it is true that he acted foolishly, then this story could be important news as a way to educate people; instead, he's praised for his "superhuman" feat while images of him holding his kids dot webpages, newscasts, and magazines. It reminds me of the heat Bill Maher took for being one of the few who didn't laud the Crocodile Hunter after he died. Maher suggested that Steve Irwin had a history of just grabbing animals and being bitten by them or snapped at by them - it was a staple on his show that garnered good ratings. He argued that if you don't provoke animals, they don't attack you. Personally, I think Maher oversimplifies it and I don't know that he's right. But I suspect the heat he took was not because he offered an opinion, but because he didn't join into the uber-sentimentality that the rest of the media was promoting. We were all used to everyone praising Irwin, showing clips of his most popular moments, showing pictures of his wife and kids, etc. When Maher criticized him, it was a jarring experience that left people cold instead of teary-eyed.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Yeah, our world is too sentimental. That's the ticket. That's our biggest problem... (rolls eyes)
Originally Posted By ecdc >>What's the point in wagging a finger at him now, second-guessing his actions, assigning blame? His family and friends will suffer tremendously already, his wife will probably spend the rest of her life second-guessing and blaming herself. Why compound that hell?<< I certainly agree with this on a personal level. But I think the questions should be more about the media and what is "news" and how that news is presented to us. It's a tragic story - no question. It's sad, no question. Is it news? Not really. It's one man who died young and shouldn't have - regardless of blame or fault. It happens everyday, just in ways that the media can't capitalize on and cause the waterworks to flood in viewers. I think gadzuux's comment that it's un PC is spot on - the best definition of political correctness is that feelings are more important that the truth. It's the reason why our media dropped the ball on Iraq - their viewers feelings that the good ole' US of A, especially in the wake of 9/11, could do no wrong was more important than the truth that we now know.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Yeah, our world is too sentimental. That's the ticket. That's our biggest problem... (rolls eyes)<< Whoa - when did I say that? I think sentimentality has it's place and I think it is sadly lost in some ways that shouldn't be. But sentimentality should never replace the truth in the news, and I think it has in any number of stories. There's plenty of "news" that has no business being news - and it's there to appeal to emotions and feelings, not what Americans need to pay attention to.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Is it news? Not really.<< Of course it is. It's not a usual occurance. It may be a 'local' story, but sometimes these small stories resonate in a way that makes them larger. >>the best definition of political correctness is that feelings are more important that the truth<< It's not 'truth' he was 'stupid.' That's opinion. That's one viewpoint of it. And sometimes, 'feelings' ARE the truth. Cold hard facts gives you a body count. Seeing a grieving widow makes one understand the humanity of a story. I'm just saying that every one of us can point to some incident that is an amusing cocktail party annecdote now, but at the time could have turned into a tragedy. We can sit back and cluck about how inevitable someone else's death was (Har, har, what did they expect, the dopes?), while the people close to us, when they die, it is somehow different. Have fun at it. I'm out.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Please don't misread my point. I take no joy in this story, only that he's being lauded widely as a hero with no mention of his gross negligence and irresponsibility in the first place. There's a balance to this story that isn't being presented. If you've seen the illustration on the front page of today's SF Chronicle it's clear that this family was being taken on a back road that wasn't even paved into the heart of wilderness with no preparations and apparently ignoring posted warnings along the way. Why? And why is the media now lionizing this guy for his ill considered actions? That's a story about personal responsibility that isn't being told.
Originally Posted By DlandJB #4 Kar2oonman said it best. It is a tragedy and I feel for the family. I'm sure there is much agony and 20/20 hindsight and "if only's" going on. The media doesn't have enough to do, plain and simple. Just leave the poor family in peace.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>only that he's being lauded widely as a hero with no mention of his gross negligence and irresponsibility in the first place. << Most of us can put 2 + 2 together. Everyone understands that a tragic mistake was made. There's no need for it to be said again and again in the media -- obviously it's in the story for all to see (I haven't seen today's Chronicle). Or maybe they want to wait until a better, more appropriate time to start underscoring mistakes he made. The guy was just found less than 24 hours ago.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm just saying that every one of us can point to some incident that is an amusing cocktail party annecdote now, but at the time could have turned into a tragedy. We can sit back and cluck about how inevitable someone else's death was (Har, har, what did they expect, the dopes?), while the people close to us, when they die, it is somehow different.<< Geez, 2oony. Why the sensitivity? You're reading things into this that no one ever said. No one called him a dope - in fact both gad and I have sincerely said that it's a tragedy and a very sad story. No one is picking on this family - at least I'm certainly not. Truth be told, I think your reaction is just evidence for my posts. We see these stories that tug at heartstrings because they are sad and devastating - and any attempt at viewing it through any other lens garners anger. All I've ever commented on was that the media covers stories with a very particular angle to get ratings. And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that this is news. I don't believe it is news - at least not headline news, but that's how it's been treated. The confirmation of Robert Gates, the continuing disaster in Iraq, the economy - these things are news. This story is no more "sad" or "tragic" than another 35 year old father of 2 dying in a car accident or of a heart attack. But that won't be on TV to make viewers feel bad. But we treat it as if it is somehow worse or more tragic through our portrayal and our reaction.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If a tragedy like this happens the mistakes made should be pointed out so that others can avoid the same fate in the future. If others can learn from his death at least something will have been accomplished by his actions.
Originally Posted By Shooba No opinion on this case, but it is typical in cases of tragedies to see people defending the deceased, regardless of what happened. I can recally stories of someone dying and killing others due to impaired driving, and we have crying family members on the TV telling us what a wonderful person they were. Your relative just killed people by driving drunk, and you're now singing his praises? Puh-leeze.
