Has Storm Chasing Become an Entertainment Industry?

[Warren Faidley]

Last night, I had dinner with a friend who works as an astronomer at Kitt Peak Observatory, southwest of Tucson. Our conversation eventually turned to storm chasing. As someone outside the chasing community, he offered an interesting perspective: to him, modern storm chasing has evolved into a form of entertainment—watching people get as close as possible to storms, often with no real purpose beyond creating extreme, attention-grabbing content.

He’s not entirely wrong. The days of hobbyist chasing peaked in the 1990s, fueled by media coverage, TV specials, magazine features, and documentaries. By the early 2000s, storm photography began to decline for a variety of reasons—some technological, some cultural.

Then came the 2010s, when social media took center stage. "Fake it until you make it" became the norm in some corners. And now, in the 2020s, live YouTube coverage seems to have become the primary public-facing aspect of storm chasing.

So I ask: Have we reached a point where, to the broader public, storm chasing is purely about entertainment? Has the original spirit—whether it was scientific, artistic, or personal—been overshadowed by the demand for constant, high-adrenaline spectacle?

Curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[John Farley]

Not in the OVERALL world of storm chasing, because most of us do not chase for that purpose. But among those who are nowadays getting the most attention, and likely making money from it in a way the vast majority of us do not, that is probably a good description.

EDIT: With Warren's post as now edited, I would say the answer is yes, or pretty close to it. With the qualification that I am referring to public perceptions, not actual chaser motivations.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I'm talking more about public perception. The same people a lot of us have to interact with. This came up multiple times during the fight against Oklahoma's anti chasing bill. One of the main arguments for the bill was that "chasers were mostly looking to get close for profit" on YouTube."

 

[William Monfredo]

...modern storm chasing has evolved into a form of entertainment—watching people get as close as possible to storms...He’s not entirely wrong.

Yes, indeed. Like a high-tech, real-life video game for the streamers. But no worries...the viewers get to pick their vehicles!

 

[Sean Ramsey]

For the public, yes. At best it was (and still is) considered a life saving exercise, right or wrong. Now that it's visible they can grab the popcorn, choose their favorite chaser and see stuff people could only dream of less than a generation ago all from the comfort of their couch or pretty much anywhere else and risk nothing. Can't think of a better way to define entertainment than that.

 

[Todd Lemery]

Talking to people who don’t chase and have an interest in it, it seems to me that for non chasers it is purely entertainment. There doesn’t seem to be a strong interest in learning, but hell yeah for entertainment. RT is followed quite a bit and they love the close up video. Chasers have a lot more interest in the setup and overall structure than the average social media watcher.

 

[Randy Zipser]

Good topic, Warren.

In the beginning of organized storm chasing, it was all about the serious quest for knowledge about "everything tornado." Nowadays, it's more about adrenaline junkies getting their "fix" from live-streaming internet, riding along for hours on end with people like RT.

However, 50 years have now elapsed from those earliest chasing days. Do we know all that there is to know about severe storms and tornadoes? Sadly, no, although we've come a very long way...

Do we know how to manipulate today's technology so that we can chase from a "la-z-boy" in our living room with little thought or effort? Yes, absolutely.

Is this progress or just inevitable destiny? We each must decide for ourselves.

Personally, I miss the "olden" (or, should I say, "Golden") days of storm chasing...when personal effort, shared experiences, and genuine camaraderie really meant something and brought chasers closer together!

 

[Dan Robinson]

I learned with Youtube that you have to gear things for a general audience to have any measure of success on there. The community of weather nerds and chasers is too small to have any impact on viewership. That's something that even TWC had to adapt to, as sad as it was for us to see it happen. That means you need to make your content informative/useful and at least mildly entertaining. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with that, providing it's done with integrity. That's something I give a lot of the newer generation credit for, they are really good at that aspect of it and it is serving them well.

 

[William Monfredo]

Now we see donations from viewers, like a telethon, live on YouTube. All for a good cause, to keep them out there chasing everything constantly.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I can’t think of another natural science field that blends so heavily with extreme entertainment. Take volcanology, for example—yes, there are people who chase volcanoes, but I don’t see any of them edging right up to boiling lava purely for live-stream thrills. The same goes for oceanography; I’ve yet to see James Cameron piloting a submersible to buzz coral reefs while chasing great white sharks for entertainment value. Is there is a certain amount of professionalism lost when things spin out of control for entertainment?

The only logical comparison are sports like auto racing. I guess the question is, has extreme chasing become a form of sports entertainment?

The fascination with live storm chasing as a form of public entertainment is, to me, a remarkable insight into modern sociology. The closest analogy I can draw is the gladiator fights of the 2rd century BCE—spectacles where the main attraction was the risk to human life. Judging by the comments posted during live chases, many viewers seem to be watching just to see if the participants will make it out alive. Every time a feed goes blank, a substantial number of people post things like "are they dead?"

There’s also, I think, a built-in pseudo-purpose to the pursuit. While it’s often framed as scientific or life-saving work, in reality, science is rarely the priority. Some people seem to genuinely believe that you need to zero-meter a tornado to provide effective spotting information—something that simply isn’t true. If you question the purpose -- you are instantly attacked by rabid fans who passionately believe it's a life saving venture.

I'm not criticizing the people who provide or enjoy this entertainment, but I find the entire concept bizarre, especially when it's carried out over public roadways, not in coliseums.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Now we see donations from viewers, like a telethon, live on YouTube.

I streamed for two seasons and I can't tell you how good it felt when someone donated and thought my content was worth the contribution.
Knowing in the moment that my costs were offset and I could just keep on going day after day without real penalty to other facets of life was simply awesome.

As a streamer I struggled a bit with the entertainment aspect of it though. I don't really communicate with anyone else when I'm out so there was a quietness to my stream that while some appreciated, it didn't make it very entertaining overall which I wasn't comfortable with. In addition, I think my natural tendency to be protective of private life prohibits me from putting myself out there like the young people do. They've basically grown up with social media and are used to having eyes on them all the time.

I am really on the fence about making a full investment in streaming equipment to go full bore in 2026, with the only thing holding me back being the entertainment part of it, given there are many much more established choices at this point. Plus, it's hard to focus on quality still photography if you're tied to your car the whole time. But, the fun factor can't be denied.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Now we see donations from viewers, like a telethon, live on YouTube. All for a good cause, to keep them out there chasing everything constantly.

True, and the donations are great, but telethons donate all the profits (minus production costs) to the public.

 

[Warren Faidley]

I’ve started adding live streaming to my chases—not as a money-making venture, but for fun, to help create a late-career biography, and to share useful information such as dust storm alerts or storm surge warnings. There is a level of risk with any chasing, but you have to use common sense. In my 38 years of photojournalism and chasing, I can guarantee you (with proof) that I have had more close calls than any of the well-known chasers out there. But the majority of these close calls were part of my work, not recorded on cameras and not designed as stunts for the public to enjoy.

Dan probably knows this better than anyone, but the sheer number of followers, subscribers, and watch hours needed to actually turn a profit is pure Looney Tunes. I also have zero desire—zilch—to risk my life by getting close to tornadoes of questionable intensity, movement, and morphology. Not only is it dangerous and reckless, but the field is now so crowded that to outdo the current insanity, you’d practically have to be carried away live on camera to Oz and marry Dorothy.

As an EMT, I’ve seen firsthand what a tornado does to a vehicle and its occupants. No thanks.

 

[Sean Ramsey]

Another thought on the general public. Regarding streamers, because they are very visible you can glean a bit if you watch with some regularity. RT has 1.4 million subscribers, but his streams consistently have 6k-8k viewers at any given time. Maybe 15k on a moderate to high risk day, or during a hurricane. So at best he has .005% of his audience watching on a supercell chase and maybe 1% during a hurricane. Now, people come and go so it's not a static group of people watching so lots of people stop in, watch for a bit then move on, while some stick around quite a bit longer.

There are several other streamers who have over 100k followers but get 2k viewers at best on a semi-regular basis. Their percentage overall is slightly better, but still less than 2% in the majority of cases.

So as far as public goes, chasing may be on their radar, but for most it's a passing thought on the entertainment side of things. As for anything else (saving lives, science, etc.), I don't think they give it much thought at all. So again, yes it may be perceived more as entertainment these days but it's far from a go-to for the mass majority and definitely falls well short of what I would call an industry.

 

[William Monfredo]

I’ve started adding live streaming to my chases—

I'm pleased that you have done this, and it takes a certain amount of courage to do something new, too.
I've seen some of your live streams and enjoyed them. I know I'm not likely to drive into all that dust like you!
You had easy-going, friendly, and frank voice-overs appropriate to your situations, providing good information as well.
But, don't get me started about trucks and drivers on I-10 !