Storm Chasers clog roads in Barber County KS

[Dan Robinson]

LOL, what the heck is this complete load of rubbish?

Oh yes - step out of line and we will not hesitate to leave a negative comment on your Facebook page. Fear the hammer!

I'm not sure why you feel this way. There's been a long history of public calling-outs in the community for public blunders, and there always will be. It happens here on ST, on blogs and on social media. If that isn't enough, then what would your definition of 'self policing' involve?

 

[Jake Orosi]

It's not an either-or thing. Don't agree to the interview. Or, explain the situation more truthfully: "Most of us aren't like that, we try to be respectful, but there's a few individuals out there who aren't interested in anybody but themselves." Maybe even concede that getting a ticket or two might be exactly what the offenders need. By instead referring to the alleged misbehaved as "our own people" and suggesting that "we" take steps to somehow punish chasers who step out of line you're volunteering a share of accountability for their actions, and when those people continue to do moronic things during the next chase (because of course we know they will), the public who's seen your interview is going to start wondering what happened to that hammer you were talking about, since it doesn't seem to be fixing the problem.

Next time perhaps it would be better to explain that there isn't really an "us" and "we" don't really have people. Chasers are whoever has a camera and wants to go see a storm, and by the same token, individual lawbreakers are individually responsible for their own actions.

 

[Jake Orosi]

I'm not sure why you feel this way. There's been a long history of public calling-outs in the community for public blunders, and there always will be. It happens here on ST, on blogs and on social media.

Well sure, but what always happens, in every single one of these instances? The called-out person gets on his blog, or his Facebook wall, or even here on ST, and tells everyone to stuff it. "I will do my own thing and nobody's going to tell me how to chase", "mind your own business", "breaking laws x, y, and z were justified because it was an emergency situation", "whatever just look at these great pictures", or some combination of these - and that's pretty much it, isn't it?

 

[Dan Robinson]

Well sure, but what always happens, in every single one of these instances? The called-out person gets on his blog, or his Facebook wall, or even here on ST, and tells everyone to stuff it. "I will do my own thing and nobody's going to tell me how to chase", "mind your own business", "breaking laws x, y, and z were justified because it was an emergency situation", "whatever just look at these great pictures", or some combination of these - and that's pretty much it, isn't it?

Sure, but their reputation takes a hit when they do that, and we all know it, even if they and their loyal followers may not care. Any normal person who cares about having a good rapport with others in their community will think twice. I don't understand what else we could do.

 

[Bart_Comstock]

It's not an either-or thing. Don't agree to the interview. Or, explain the situation more truthfully: "Most of us aren't like that, we try to be respectful, but there's a few individuals out there who aren't interested in anybody but themselves." Maybe even concede that getting a ticket or two might be exactly what the offenders need. By instead referring to the alleged misbehaved as "our own people" and suggesting that "we" take steps to somehow punish chasers who step out of line you're volunteering a share of accountability for their actions, and when those people continue to do moronic things during the next chase (because of course we know they will), the public who's seen your interview is going to start wondering what happened to that hammer you were talking about, since it doesn't seem to be fixing the problem.

Next time perhaps it would be better to explain that there isn't really an "us" and "we" don't really have people. Chasers are whoever has a camera and wants to go see a storm, and by the same token, individual lawbreakers are individually responsible for their own actions.

I did exactly that but they pressed. Irregardless I felt it was better to agree to the interview than not after the public response given by chasers on the news comment sections and facebook.

I also agree with what Dan said and even suggested in the interview that those who misbehave should be ticketed if possible. I really feel you are making a mountain out of an mole hill with my statement on self policing.

Had I not agreed to the interview the station would have said they tried to reach out to the chaser community but got no response, or got someone on that could have made us look like lunatics. I saw doing the interview and giving the statements I have as the best form of damage control possible.

 

[Jake Orosi]

I did exactly that but they pressed.

Then repeat yourself.

It's starting to sound like I'm heckling and that wasn't really my intention - more like just a suggestion for next time. It just seems to me that making stuff up or "creatively reinterpreting" facts to make them sound better for the news, is risky and can lead to problems down the road. We would like to self-police the way you described, but we don't. People have suggested it in the past and too many chasers shot it down because agreeing to chase courteously and responsibly cramped their style too much.

 

[Shane Adams]

Saying "no comment" is just as bad as they would have noted that I dodged the question.

Maybe the solution is don't fucking talk to the media in the first place. Surely you aren't getting paid, so what's the point?

 

[Bart_Comstock]

Then repeat yourself.

It's starting to sound like I'm heckling and that wasn't really my intention - more like just a suggestion for next time. It just seems to me that making stuff up or "creatively reinterpreting" facts to make them sound better for the news, is risky and can lead to problems down the road. We would like to self-police the way you described, but we don't. People have suggested it in the past and too many chasers shot it down because agreeing to chase courteously and responsibly cramped their style too much.

There are a plethora of instances where the chaser community has done everything in its power to police its self when someone acted as a fool. Chasers have lost support, chase partners, brokers, and support for being overly reckless or ignorant. I would not say I was creatively reinterpreting the fact that the chaser community does try to police its self and ostracizes those who are a problem. Once again, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill with my statement and over simplifying the option. Answering a point blank question with a response with a statement that is no-comment, silence, or an obvious attempt to dodge by just repeating the answer to a previous statement are all equally bad and any reporter worth their salt would notate in the story that I would not comment on what the community does when witnessing one of its members misbehaving.

Now lets look at what I said. ""Anytime there is a chaser that is our there acting foolish, they will be ostracized by the community at large and we do a pretty good job of bringing the hammer down on our own people." Tell me where I made something up or creatively reinterpreted what actually happens in that statement. I have seen chases come down extremely hard on idiots in our ranks. While yes it is true that our self policing has its limits but that does not change the fact that we do police ourselves as much as we can and, at times, do so harshly.

Maybe the solution is don't fucking talk to the media in the first place. Surely you aren't getting paid, so what's the point?

You are correct, I did not get paid to participate in that interview. I do not see what the harm was in talking to the media about this. I felt that when the station approached me that, in this specific incident (one where a problem did not really exist until the sheriff made it into one), it would not cause any extra harm. The chaser community has been beaten up for a long while with these stories and not once has any chaser ever been interviewed about the issue. Got a real issue with what I said on camera? Fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion but that doesn't mean I wont try to defend what I said as I do stand behind it.

Furthermore, what is the point of doing anything that doesn't turn an income? What's the point of doing and interview or hosting a weekly web talk show? Surely there are more things that make doing something worth doing or not pointless to do other than whether or not it makes you money.

 

[Kevin Rimcoski]

I want to say that I agree ^
The news/media will stretch whatever truth they can to make their reports sound more interesting at times than they really are. One of the best ways is to keep people's drama up.
If he was to say "no comment" or anything of the sort, they can turn thay around on you and make you look bad even though it's a more neutral statement. In this case I believe that explaining yourself was the better option

 

[Shane Adams]

There are a plethora of instances where the chaser community has done everything in its power to police its self when someone acted as a fool. Chasers have lost support, chase partners, brokers, and support for being overly reckless or ignorant. I would not say I was creatively reinterpreting the fact that the chaser community does try to police its self and ostracizes those who are a problem. Once again, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill with my statement and over simplifying the option. Answering a point blank question with a response with a statement that is no-comment, silence, or an obvious attempt to dodge by just repeating the answer to a previous statement are all equally bad and any reporter worth their salt would notate in the story that I would not comment on what the community does when witnessing one of its members misbehaving.

Now lets look at what I said. ""Anytime there is a chaser that is our there acting foolish, they will be ostracized by the community at large and we do a pretty good job of bringing the hammer down on our own people." Tell me where I made something up or creatively reinterpreted what actually happens in that statement. I have seen chases come down extremely hard on idiots in our ranks. While yes it is true that our self policing has its limits but that does not change the fact that we do police ourselves as much as we can and, at times, do so harshly.



You are correct, I did not get paid to participate in that interview. I do not see what the harm was in talking to the media about this. I felt that when the station approached me that, in this specific incident (one where a problem did not really exist until the sheriff made it into one), it would not cause any extra harm. The chaser community has been beaten up for a long while with these stories and not once has any chaser ever been interviewed about the issue. Got a real issue with what I said on camera? Fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion but that doesn't mean I wont try to defend what I said as I do stand behind it.

Furthermore, what is the point of doing anything that doesn't turn an income? What's the point of doing and interview or hosting a weekly web talk show? Surely there are more things that make doing something worth doing or not pointless to do other than whether or not it makes you money.

The point of an interview is you have to arrange it, you have to make it happen, working with outside people. A vlog is something you do on your own time, by yourself, at home. Effortless. Conducting a media interview takes some doing. FWIW, I haven't seen the interview, so I have no opinion on what exactly it is you said.

 

[Bart_Comstock]

The point of an interview is you have to arrange it, you have to make it happen, working with outside people. A vlog is something you do on your own time, by yourself, at home. Effortless. Conducting a media interview takes some doing. FWIW, I haven't seen the interview, so I have no opinion on what exactly it is you said.

Yes, it was such a big effort on my behalf accepting their request for an interview, which involved no set up on my part other than logging onto Skype. I can see your point.

 

[Shane Adams]

Yes, it was such a big effort on my behalf accepting their request for an interview, which involved no set up on my part other than logging onto Skype. I can see your point.

Bart...this was never about your or me...I was just sharing the simple opinion that if a person never participates in an interview to begin with, the problem doesn't exist. Do all the interviews you like, do them in god-like robe with lots of women throwing little pickles at you....I'm not concerned.

 

[James Wilson]

Traffic was actually great most of the day of course we were on muddy dirt roads scoring tornadoes not blowing out our ass on a loud speaker.

 

[Michael Snyder]

It's strange that these kind of "stories" seem to mostly be coming out of Kansas, when I've seen way worse convergence in Oklahoma (including yesterday) but I've yet to have a LEO this side of the state line be hostile towards me for chasing. Lyons Co sheriff issues on April 14 2012, Rush Co. LEO/La Crosse Fire Dept. blocking off roads in 2012 and forcing chasers to stop (including myself) as the tornado bore down on the highway, along with smaller associated news stories/comments like this seem to be becoming more commonplace.

This was the same guy in Rush Country on May 25th that I had freaking out on me, as other chasers blew by on the shoulder. I was the only one who stopped and he was going nuts. He calmed down when I diffused the situation, but man he was trying to trap people on the roads with 2 tornadoes on the ground, dangerous.

 

[Shawn Camp]

Dear Chasers and weather spotters and others

OK I have read stuff like this and I have held my tounge for as long as I am going to. NOW I'm going to speak and what I am going to suggest may sound a bit crazy but you know what it's not as crazy as some of the things that I have read on this topic and others that are just like it. For years I have held my tounge and not said a lot on this forum about these things and I've only talked to others face to face about this stuff but I see that I can no longer hold my tounge so just get ready because here I go. The Storm Chasing Community has grown unbelievably LARGE and while I understand that it has done so the media coverage on us I believe has increased exponentially. Chasers are being watched more closely now then in the past. We are being watched for what we do right and for what we do wrong. I believe that the time is coming when we as a CHASER SOCIETY are going to need a Media Relations Officer to speak for us. Now I know that a lot of you are laughing and going "do what" But the number of issues that seem to pop up involving the chaser world I believe is increasing and we need someone to be that voice of calm and reason someone who possesses the right kind of attitude and someone who can speak for us with a calm and clear voice and speak for us with the right attitude when things like this latest incident occur. Police and Fire depts. use these people to send a clear message to the media when stuff happens so that they have someone to speak for that dept. My Volunteer Fire dept. that I am a part of has this person and I am glad that we do. I know this may sound very crazy to a lot of you but I can see a day coming when we seriously need to consider this option and appoint someone to do this for us. We could do this on a 2-yr basis or a 4-yr basis but someone who can send the right message to the media, law enforcement, fire or anyone else that would want to know more about our response to a certain issue or a event. These are just some thoughts that I've had for a long time and now I believe is the time to bring them to the forefront of the chaser community and let you all decide weather or not that my point is valid or not. Any responses any of you choose to give I would love to hear it.


Shawn C.