Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Press Coverage Of Asiana Crash Vs Alaska Crash  
User currently offlinebristolflyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 2290 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1609 times:

So the Asiana crash was huge news over the weekend, A.net is already up to thread no. 6 with all the talk and conjecture. Contrast that to the crash that happened in Alaska where 5x as many people were killed yet the accident got very little press (story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23222244 ). Why do you think there is such a difference? I have a couple of ideas to throw out there:

The 777 is very much an 'everyday' plane that a lot of people fly on and can relate to which brings up the 'that could easily have been me' thoughts.

There were way more people involved in the Asiana crash.

The people who were in the Alaska crash are incurring risks all the time by flying around in small planes in bad weather so there is less sympathy/mutual understanding from the rest of the public.

What are your thoughts?


Fortune favours the brave
9 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineb777erj145 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 100 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1598 times:

I do agree with you that OZ's news was bigger and got a lot of media news than the news coming from Alaska. I was surprised that there was no thread here until I posted it on here until 10:30 CST (I am not trying to get credit of posting the news). One of the reason I can think is that the earliest the article was written/posted was an hour ago when I searched it around that time. other reason I can think of is that the high number of people survived in the OZ crash (as you stated) and it happened in one of the biggest city here. Also as you stated that Alaska is known for rough weather. I am going to add one more thing that Alaska is "far" from the contiguous US, it takes time to get news from remote part.

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Quoting b777erj145 (Reply 1):
other reason I can think of is that the high number of people survived in the OZ crash (as you stated) and it happened in one of the biggest city here.

Was sad to read the news about the crash and deaths in AK, but indeed you can bet the house that a plume of smoke rising hundreds of feet into the air in the middle of SF Bay with thousands if not millions watching it rise is going to get more notice than the unfortunate folks who crashed and died in Soldotna, AK.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6530 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

A 777 is a tad bigger than an Otter, and crashes far less often.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1539 times:

You have live pictures of the crashed a/c in SFO, a major city with a large media presence available vs. a remote location in Alaska where live pictures are more difficult to get out.

The Asiana crash led the media to ignore far greater losses of live and damage. You have the huge train crash in Quebec with at least 13 people killed and dozens still missing and presumed turned to ashes in the related fire as well as dozens of buildings in a town destroyed. In Chicago over the weekend, 36 people were shot by guns with hardly a national outcry.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1519 times:

I think it's the size of the plane, honestly. Even the Colgan Air crash didn't seem to get as much coverage as it should have, IMO. Nor did the Comair flight in LEX. Let's face it, Dash-8s and CRJs are "small planes" and the 777 is a "big plane." In the non-aviation-educated mind of the public and media, misconceptions distort reality, so I don't find this as surprising


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineYVRLTN From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 2444 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1511 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
I think it's the size of the plane, honestly

I think its size and location.

The 777 has a phenomenal safety record after 18 years of service and this is truly a rare event. Likewise all the modern widebodies.

Otter's and Beaver's and other bushplanes unfortunately do crash on a fairly regular basis, between Canada and Alaska there are probably 10-20 major crashes a year at least.

If this same Otter had crashed at SFO and crashed an burned on the runway in view of the UA 744, caught on video and closed the airport, while it wouldnt generate the same attention I think it would be more news worthy than happening in AK, as I really do think people tune it out as "stuff like that happens up there" because it really doesnt at SFO.



Follow me on twitter for YVR movements @vernonYVR
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10654 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1458 times:

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 6):
I think its size and location.

Add the fact that most of us have flown with a 777, only very few with an Otter. Its the "it could have been me" effect.
Add the fact its the first deadly 777 crash, and the fact that here are many 777 fans.
Add the fact its quite big news when a big modern widebody crashes (that luckily has become extremely rare over the past 10 years or so), but not big news if an old, small and supposedly less reliable plane crashes in a remote area hardly anyone of us has any connections to.
Add the fact pictures and videos popped up quickly and on the internet first. I had just come home and switched on my computer when the thread popped up and it had no answer yet. 20 minutes later I switched on the TV and was very astonished that even CNN had nothing by then, it took them 30-40 minutes for the first report after it popped up here!


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12345 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1432 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 5):
I think it's the size of the plane, honestly. Even the Colgan Air crash didn't seem to get as much coverage as it should have, IMO. Nor did the Comair flight in LEX. Let's face it, Dash-8s and CRJs are "small planes" and the 777 is a "big plane."

FAA draws a similar line, IIRC at 19 seats and below? As was pointed out during the 787 crash by a few of the more knowledgeable posters, like it or not, there's a point at which manufacturers won't go beyond to make a plane safe, and number of souls aboard is a part of that calculation.

Quoting na (Reply 7):
Add the fact pictures and videos popped up quickly and on the internet first. I had just come home and switched on my computer when the thread popped up and it had no answer yet. 20 minutes later I switched on the TV and was very astonished that even CNN had nothing by then, it took them 30-40 minutes for the first report after it popped up here!

Not too surprising to me. Clearly the tv news just isn't the place to go any more for breaking stories. Twitter has surpassed it to the point that even tv newsreaders are just reading tweets aloud. Most of my following of the Boston Marathon bombing consisted of following twitter streams because the tv stuff was hopelessly behind events. As the tweets flew by I'd do what I presume the tv staff was doing which was googling to see if the stuff being said was corroborated by other sources. 2/3rds of the time I'd find out that the pretty much every news source was just quoting tweets I'd already read.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1380 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 8):
like it or not, there's a point at which manufacturers won't go beyond to make a plane safe, and number of souls aboard is a part of that calculation.

Oh yeah, and that is true about everything in life. If saving life was a #1 priority, the speed limit would be 20 mph throughout the whole country, every passenger in a plane would have an ejection seat, etc etc.


I'll also add that "small plane crashes" happen all the time... they are mentioned once on the evening news or not at all, and most people don't even think about it. A Cessna crash could have killed more than this 777 crash...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Driver Cleared Of Death Crash While Watching DVD posted Wed Aug 11 2004 16:23:58 by Luv2fly
Mourning Families Of Plane Crash... posted Thu Jul 4 2002 15:40:09 by Asbg
Your Opinion Of Small Colleges (vs Big Colleges) posted Mon Jul 19 2010 03:53:06 by Elite
Rhapsody Of The Seas VS Norwegian Star posted Mon Mar 29 2010 04:11:40 by United Airline
Television Coverage Of 9/11. posted Sun Apr 19 2009 19:14:08 by Falcon84
Battle Of Heavyweights: Bus Vs Passenger Car posted Mon Jan 19 2009 10:13:24 by Derico
Best Coverage Of The Elections This Year? posted Sun Nov 5 2006 22:28:26 by AerospaceFan
American Media Coverage Of Mideast Part II posted Fri Jul 21 2006 18:06:28 by Bravo45
American Media Coverage Of Lebanon Crisis posted Sat Jul 15 2006 03:52:37 by RJpieces
Truth About Coverage Of Mideast Conflict. (Video) posted Sun May 14 2006 12:25:59 by Bravo45