kayakwriter
Administrator
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,392
Right place, right time: Coast Guard rescues overturned Nanaimo kayaker
- Thread starter kayakwriter
- Start date
a_c
Established Member
Another kayak rescue story that tells us basically nothing.
"Berg wasn’t aware how well protected the kayaker was from the elements, or if a life preserver was worn.
It’s also unclear how long the kayaker was in the ocean. "
But at least we know that it occurred " in the open ocean, but not too far offshore...", whatever that means. Also, life preserver?!? What is this, 1920?
Between this story and the one about the person found hanging on to the pilings after their "kayak" broke apart in flat calm water, I think the general public is maybe getting the wrong impression.
"Berg wasn’t aware how well protected the kayaker was from the elements, or if a life preserver was worn.
It’s also unclear how long the kayaker was in the ocean. "
But at least we know that it occurred " in the open ocean, but not too far offshore...", whatever that means. Also, life preserver?!? What is this, 1920?
Between this story and the one about the person found hanging on to the pilings after their "kayak" broke apart in flat calm water, I think the general public is maybe getting the wrong impression.
The reality of news reporting is that it is not what it once was in the days of old. Its about viewers and readers and not necessarily accurate or complete content. Not blaming them, that's just the reality that they need to generate revenue while keeping costs low. You get what you get. Sure, it would be nice for better details on this and many other incidents so that we could all learn from them. Unfortunately, that is not the job of the news organizations.
alexsidles
Established Member
If I remember my lore correctly, the reason Matt Broze and George Gronseth started a regular feature of accidents reports in Sea Kayaker magazine back in the 1980s was because news reporting about kayak accidents wasn't any better back in those days than it is today! General-interest news reporting has never supplied the kinds of details about accidents that are most of interest to kayakers. If we want someone to dissect an accident kayaker-style, we've always had to do it ourselves.
Alex
cougarmeat
Premier Member
Maybe I posted this before, but a few years back, there was a story about a ham radio operator who injured his foot/leg while hiking in the back country and was able to call for help. I was bothered because the frequency he used required stringing up a 30 ft wire for an antenna or some combination of coils and extendable whip - all would be a challenge with a broken leg. So I contacted the guy and asked him about it.
He said that after he was injured a group of hikers came by THEY helped string up the antenna, with which he contacted another operator in the next state, who then relayed the information to more local authorities. One person in the hiking group had medical training and put a splint on the leg. The injured person had food and shelter and help was on it's way. So the hiking group continued on their way. None of that was mentioned in the article.
The ham operator said he told the reporters all that but they felt it made a better story if they left the "assistance" part out.
Long. long ago, I interviewed for a story after returning to Bend from a meditation retreat in Korea. It was interesting what the paper put in and what they left out. It wasn't "mis-truths", but it wasn't exactly what I said either.
My friend, Bob Speik, used to interview people for a yearly mountain accident journal. Seldom did the detail or tone of the article in the public newpaper match the actual event. What seemed most missing was the decision responsibility that led up to the event. The article's tone was more, "These things happen" rather than "This happened because of this decision." Maybe there are some legal/accident insurance concerns.
He said that after he was injured a group of hikers came by THEY helped string up the antenna, with which he contacted another operator in the next state, who then relayed the information to more local authorities. One person in the hiking group had medical training and put a splint on the leg. The injured person had food and shelter and help was on it's way. So the hiking group continued on their way. None of that was mentioned in the article.
The ham operator said he told the reporters all that but they felt it made a better story if they left the "assistance" part out.
Long. long ago, I interviewed for a story after returning to Bend from a meditation retreat in Korea. It was interesting what the paper put in and what they left out. It wasn't "mis-truths", but it wasn't exactly what I said either.
My friend, Bob Speik, used to interview people for a yearly mountain accident journal. Seldom did the detail or tone of the article in the public newpaper match the actual event. What seemed most missing was the decision responsibility that led up to the event. The article's tone was more, "These things happen" rather than "This happened because of this decision." Maybe there are some legal/accident insurance concerns.